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:
    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:
    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."
     
    Chapter Two - Waist Deep in the Big Muddy
  • Chapter Two - Waist Deep in the Big Muddy

    While Eugene McCarthy was making off-the-record declarations to the press that he was willing to run against the President, another man was trying to find someone to do just that.

    Allard Lowenstein was a political and civil rights activist who had been involved in various liberal causes since the late 1940s. His biggest political accomplishments to date had been investigating abuses against the black population of South Africa by its apartheid government, and taking part in the Freedom Summer to register black people eligible to vote in the South. He also had the credentials of having previously worked as a staff member on Hubert Humphrey's foreign policy team, and as a speech writer for Bobby Kennedy. Lowenstein was a strong opponent of the Vietnam War, and, by 1966, had decided that Lyndon Johnson needed to be challenged for the Democratic nomination. Lowenstein was joined by Curtis Gans, a voting statistics analyst, and together they started what would come to be called the Dump Johnson Movement. Throughout 1966 and most of 1967, Lowenstein laid the groundwork for the as-of-yet-unchosen opponent to Johnson. Attending the 1966 annual convention of the National Students Association (NSA), Lowenstein had to contend with radicals in the organization who felt it was futile to operate within the political system as it existed, and felt that civil disobedience was the only way to challenge Johnson and the Vietnam War. Lowenstein's more moderate position won the internal NSA vote; a letter of protest was sent to the President, and a meeting was arranged between the hawkish Secretary of State Dean Rusk and the various student body presidents of the NSA. Unfortunately for Lowenstein, Rusk's dismissive attitude disillusioned many within the NSA to jump ship to the radical New Left Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Next, Lowenstein approached Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), of which Lowenstein was the youngest board member. However, even the anti-war members of ADA questioned the feasibility, or even the rationality, of dumping Johnson, who, they said, had accomplished more for economic justice and civil rights than any president since Franklin Roosevelt.

    With the NSA divided and the ADA unwilling to help, Lowenstein was forced to create his own political organization to act as the grassroots foundation of the Dump Johnson Movement. That organization would become the Conference for Concerned Democrats (CCD), officially formed in August of 1967. Throughout the summer, Lowenstein and Gans had criss-crossed the country on a shoe-string budget, setting up local chapters of the CCD on college campuses, and asking for support and donations from political reform clubs and anti-war organizations. While many saw their work as a fool's errand, Gans' voter analysis indicated that Johnson had an incredibly fragile voting base for an incumbent president. As Lowenstein continued on, he began to get in touch with various other state-based groups opposed to Johnson: in New Hampshire, a minor local politician named Eugene Daniell was attempting to organize a Draft Robert Kennedy movement; in Wisconsin, there was an attempt to whip up support for a write-in of “No” on the ballot to signify a rejection of Johnson; and in California, a group of anti-war activists were putting together their own slate of delegates to challenge the pro-Johnson delegate slate in the primary. Despite their sympathies for the CCD, all of these groups had the obvious flaw of lacking a willing candidate, but Lowenstein knew just the man to ask...

    Bobby Kennedy.

    Johnson's paranoia of Kennedy had continued even after he had secured the nomination 1964. Kennedy left his position as attorney general to become the senator for New York, which Johnson believed was so he would be better positioned to challenge him in 1968. And indeed, Kennedy did plan on running for president, with it being a question of when, not if. During his time in the Senate, he became a champion of civil rights causes and progressive reform, and while privately opposed to the Vietnam War, he vacillated in public for fear that any criticism would be interpreted by the press as a challenge to the President. Before he had even been approached by Lowenstein, Kennedy's cadre of advisors were arguing over whether he should run in 1968, or wait until 1972. The '68 faction consisted of his younger staffers, his wife Ethel, and his widowed sister-in-law Jackie. Those of the '72 faction consisted of his brother Ted, as well as the old guard Jack Kennedy advisors such as Ted Sorenson and Arthur Schlesinger Jr. The former argued that 1968 was the best chance to challenge the Vietnam War and heal the growing divisions in American society. The latter argued that challenging Johnson would be political suicide, especially with the powerful party bosses, like Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago, showing no interest in a challenge against the President. Kennedy was still undecided when he was first approached by his old speech writer in August of 1967, the same month the CCD was founded. Lowenstein laid out the plan that the basis of any challenge against Johnson would have to rely on building momentum in the early primary states where the President would not be directly competing. If Johnson was sufficiently weakened in the primaries, then the party bosses could be convinced that Kennedy would be the safer bet in the general against the Republican challenger. By the time of their second meeting in late September, Kennedy was still undecided. In a private gathering with Kennedy and some of his advisors, Lowenstein made an impassioned plea for the Dump Johnson Movement. Schlesinger proposed a compromise where Kennedy would not run for president, but would promote a peace plank at that Democratic convention. Kennedy rejected the plank idea as uninspiring, but also came to the decision that he would wait until 1972. As Lowenstein walked out the door, he derisively declared, “We're going to do it without you, and that's too bad. Because you could have become President of the United States.”

    With Kennedy refusing to run, Lowenstein had lost the potential candidate with the highest name recognition and popularity of anyone opposed to the Vietnam War. With no clear second choice, Lowenstein went about asking different candidates. Kennedy himself had recommended Senator George McGovern of South Dakota, but McGovern declined, believing Johnson's nomination to be an inevitability, and fearing for his re-election chances in the Senate once he failed to beat the President. McGovern instead recommended, off the top of his head, Eugene McCarthy [1]. Lowenstein had only briefly met McCarthy once before, in the spring of 1967, when Kennedy was still the main choice of Dump Johnson and the CCD. Back then, McCarthy had agreed that Kennedy was the best candidate. However, with no other options left, Lowenstein got McCarthy to agree to a meeting in October. Giving his usual pitch on the feasibility and moral necessity of challenging Johnson, McCarthy, unexpectedly, agreed to run.

    Lowenstein had finally found his candidate.

    Allard Lowenstein 1969.jpg

    Allard Lowenstein: The liberal activist and Dump Johnson leader who was instrumental in laying the groundwork for McCarthy's presidential campaign.

    Word quickly spread through the grapevine of liberal senators that Gene McCarthy of all people was going to challenge the President. The idea was not warmly received by his colleagues: sympathetic anti-war senators did not want to risk backing a guaranteed loser when their own re-election chances were on the line, and most of them saw McCarthy as snide and unreliable. Even one of McCarthy's best friends in the Senate, Philip Hart of Michigan, thought he was a political incompetent without any sense of commitment. Kennedy thought that he was only doing it to boost his book sales, and one Johnson loyalist thought he was doing it out of boredom, exclaiming, “It's not in his nature to be President. He doesn't even want to be Senator [2]!” To his credit, McCarthy was open about the fact that he was losing interest in politics, and intended to retire and return to academia. He figured he had nothing to lose in challenging Johnson over what he saw as a critical moral issue. However, as he did a pre-announcement tour of the country to various college campuses – mostly in New England and California – McCarthy tried to convince Kennedy to run, despite their mutual antipathy. They met only once during this time. In a meeting organized by journalist and mutual friend Mary McGrory, the two were supposed to have a one hour discussion about the logistics of McCarthy running in the early primary states. Instead, McCarthy arrived late, barely said anything for seven minutes, then left. McCarthy later sent a message to Kennedy telling him not to “throw stones on the track while I'm running out there [3]."

    While he was doing all this, McCarthy had yet to confirm that he was running for president, merely saying that he was considering the option. Lowenstein was becoming increasingly concerned that McCarthy would try to back out, with weeks having passed since their meeting. However, McCarthy gained more behind-the-scenes support that seemed to convince him to enter the race. His daughter, Mary, had been a leading anti-war activist at her college, and constantly pressured him to challenge Johnson, while some in the ADA had changed their mind; John Kenneth Galbraith and Joseph Rauh Jr., both founders of the ADA and both members of its executive committee, had had a change of heart about challenging Johnson, after witnessing the growing strength of the Dump Johnson Movement. The duo approached McCarthy to encourage him to run, and promised they would work to convince the rest of the ADA to hold a vote to endorse him if he did. Finally, McCarthy acquiesced [4].

    On November 30th of 1967, McCarthy held a press conference in the Senate Caucus Room. Reading off a prepared statement in a monotone, McCarthy announced that he would be “entering” the primaries in Wisconsin, Nebraska, Oregon, and California, and would decide later if he was going to enter in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Not once in his speech did he say he was running for president. In the question period that followed the address, he admitted that would rather have Kennedy run instead, “so that I wouldn’t have to do anything.”

    Three days later, McCarthy flew to Chicago to give the keynote address at the CCD national convention in the Chicago Hilton ballroom, where Lowenstein hoped that he would start his campaign in earnest.

    It did not go as planned.

    McCarthy was still writing out his speech in his hotel room at the time the event was supposed to start. There was a record turnout of six thousand people, with the ballroom only being able to hold four thousand, with the rest waiting outside. Seeing their growing impatience, Lowenstein went on stage to get the audience warmed up. With the attention of the audience, Lowenstein gave the best, most passionate speech of his career, riling the audience up into a hysteria, booing Johnson, and cheering the anti-war movement. McCarthy watched in shock from the closed-circuit TV in his room, and sprinted down to stop Lowenstein. To McCarthy, the whole campaign was supposed to be about the issues, and a peaceful, orderly demonstration against the war. Instead, Lowenstein was firing off at Johnson personally in a demagogic monologue, and if there was one thing McCarthy absolutely hated, it was demagoguery. Even once McCarthy arrived, Lowenstein insisted on finishing his own speech, in perhaps the most spectacular example of stealing someone’s thunder in American political history. Regardless, by the time McCarthy took to the stage, the audience was screaming in adulation.

    He began with a discussion of the degradation of Roman morality following the Punic Wars, before giving an extended anecdote about the Dreyfus Affair, and only then firmly settling on the topic of Vietnam. McCarthy dutifully listed the reasons why the war was unconstitutional or immoral in the style of a cerebral academic lecture, rather than a pumped up campaign rally. By the time he finished, the excitement in the room had completely deflated. McCarthy decided not to go outside to speak to the two thousand attendees who had not been able to hear the speech, and declined to meet with any of the CCD state caucuses. McCarthy never forgave Lowenstein for co-opting his night, and refused to ever take a stage after him again. They rarely met after that, with Gans becoming the chief representative of the CCD for the campaign. McCarthy was panned in the media. The weak showing hurt his support in the ADA, with many in the anti-war faction thinking that he was such an anemic candidate that he was making Johnson look good by comparison. The McCarthy campaign had stalled before it was even out of the gate [5].

    Curtis Gans at the mic 1968.jpg

    Curtis Gans at the mic: Following Lowenstein's estrangement from the campaign, Gans was the main link between Dump Johnson, the CCD, and McCarthy, and served in senior roles for the rest of his campaign. His voting pattern analysis was the first proof that Johnson would be vulnerable in 1968. A hastily put up McCarthy poster is peeling off the wall in the background.
    After its rough start, McCarthy’s campaign struggled to coalesce. The entire campaign staff was made up of volunteers, with no official appointments having been made. Many politicians and lobbyists who had promised to support McCarthy if he ran suddenly went quiet, instilling a distrust of ‘professionals’ for the rest of the campaign. Gans continued to act as a liaison, but was often blocked by Jerry Eller, McCarthy’s personal aide, who was incredibly territorial about the Senator’s schedule. The various anti-Johnson electoral efforts were confederated into McCarthy’s campaign, but there was barely any communication between the regional offices (which McCarthy scarcely visited) and the central office (which McCarthy never visited). While money had indeed poured in from Adlai Stevenson’s old supporters on Wall Street, it was largely unaccounted for; the finances of the campaign had not been prepared, and donations were spread out over different banks and different accounts, without a way to quickly withdraw it for campaign needs. McCarthy’s brother-in-law Stephen Quigley, a surgeon by trade who had previously served as Minnesota’s comptroller, was put in charge of the budget. Seeing that the position was still vacant, Blair Clark, a sympathetic journalist and business executive, offered to act as the campaign manager until a professional could be found for the job. McCarthy never looked for a replacement, and Clark – who had never run a political campaign in his life – almost accidentally took on the position permanently [6].

    Clark knew that challenging an incumbent president would be an uphill battle without any other factors, but the press had already begun to write off McCarthy’s campaign as amateurish, and losing press interest was something that the campaign could not afford. While all but the most optimistic volunteers expected to lose, they needed a strong enough showing to push Johnson into adopting a peace plank at the Democratic Convention in Chicago. Clark also knew that with the campaign so far behind, they needed to do something flashy to get things re-energized. To that end, Clark tried to convince McCarthy to enter into the New Hampshire primary.

    Blair Clark.jpg

    An undated photo of Blair Clark. A journalist and businessman, Clark served as McCarthy's campaign manager despite having no prior political experience.
    Even before McCarthy had entered the race, New Hampshire had been one of the states with an active Dump Johnson Movement. Eugene Daniell, a state politician and former mayor, had been working on a Draft Robert Kennedy effort. Daniell was calling on voters to write in Kennedy’s name on their ballot, in an attempt to emulate the success of Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. in 1964 [7]. In the Republican primaries of that year, a draft effort for Lodge had seen him win the primary, despite not being an active candidate and not once setting foot in the state.

    New Hampshire politics were in a state of flux at the time. The state was considered conservative and hawkish, with it having been a one-party state for the Republicans up until recently. Due to a centre-right ideological consensus, politics were mainly based off of personality, ethnicity, and the preferences of the local media rather than policy. It was for these exact reasons that McCarthy was hesitant to enter the New Hampshire primary. However, there was a small but active anti-war scene as well. In a preliminary scouting tour, Gans had recruited a local professor with experience in politics and who was opposed to the war: David Hoeh. Hoeh was receptive to the idea of running a campaign in the state for an anti-war candidate, but only if it was an active candidate, rather than a draft movement. After his October meeting with McCarthy, Lowenstein himself went to New Hampshire to meet with Hoeh and his compatriots to let them know they had a candidate, and that it was time to beginning laying the groundwork. Much like Blair, Hoeh was chosen as the temporary chairman of the New Hampshire McCarthy for President Steering Committee, but without anyone under consideration to take the job as permanent chairman after him. Hoeh was also joined by Gerry Studds, a former legislative assistant in the State Department during the Kennedy Administration, and the de facto co-leader of the New Hampshire operation. Both were working for the campaign on a part-time basis.

    Hoeh had seen McCarthy campaign for Jack Kennedy in the state in 1960. Rather than being discouraged, he was convinced that McCarthy’s slow and steady style would be uniquely appealing in the state. Hoeh and Studds had thorough analysed the layout of the state, and had created a long list of reasons for McCarthy to run. They essentially boiled down to the facts that the state was cheap and easy to campaign in, had a disproportionately powerful impact on news coverage, and that even a meagre showing in the hawkish state would garner legitimacy. However, according to New Hampshire law, in order to officially file as a campaign organization they needed to be backing a declared candidate, and could not get started until McCarthy officially declared he was running in the state. Informed by Clark that McCarthy did not like heavy canvassing or front work, Hoeh and Studds offered to cut down on the campaign schedule.

    When McCarthy met with the New Hampshire team in mid-December, he told them he was still undecided, but likely to enter. By late December, he was telling the press that he would be skipping the New Hampshire primary. This was a disappointment for Hoeh and Studds, especially since they had not been told about the decision directly, and instead had found out by reading a copy of the Boston Globe. The cautious McCarthy had apparently been convinced that the possibility of a catastrophic, embarrassing defeat in New Hampshire was not worth the risk of perhaps doing modestly well. He would instead focus his energies on the second primary in Wisconsin.

    But, McCarthy changed his mind again. On January 2nd of 1968, he sent Clark on a secret mission to Hoeh’s house to tell him that he would be running in New Hampshire. A little while after Clark had arrived to deliver the news, McCarthy phoned Hoeh and did it himself. Clark was confused why he would be sent in person when McCarthy intended to call the entire time [8].

    Regardless, with McCarthy as a declared candidate, the New Hampshire team was finally able kick into action.


    McCarthy in New Hampshire, 1968.jpg

    A handshake in the Granite State: Before officially announcing that he would be participating in the New Hampshire primary, McCarthy briefly visited the state at least twice.
    Ever since his non-announcement that he was running for president, McCarthy had been an object of mockery and suspicion in the White House. The capture of the American spy ship USS Pueblo off the coast of North Korea had prompted a hawkish mood in the country, and Johnson was polling in landslide numbers in the early primary states. McCarthy’s former friend (and still the Secretary of Agriculture) Orville Freeman wrote him off as “a footnote in history,” while Humphrey was hurt that his old friend would betray him in an act of vindictive political suicide. Johnson dismissed him completely in public, but he was privately worried that McCarthy was working as a stalking horse for Kennedy, who he believed would be the real threat to his renomination. To the extent that he was worried of McCarthy, it was from the possibility if he gained the support of black leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. that it would irreparably split the party by the time of the general election [9]. For the primaries, Johnson decided to adopt a Rose Garden strategy. In New Hampshire, he sent Bernard Boutin as his agent in the state. Boutin had previously been a candidate for governor in New Hampshire, narrowly losing in 1959. Following that, he had occupied various middle management positions in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Chosen as the Johnson loyalist who knew New Hampshire best, Boutin was responsible for orchestrating a landslide victory for the President in the state's primary, with the implied reward of a cabinet position in his future. Joining Boutin's efforts were Governor John King, a hawkish moderate-conservative, and Senator Thomas McIntyre, a more liberal supporter of Johnson [10].

    The challenge facing the Johnson team was that the President was not officially running, and therefore his name would not appear on the ballot. Their job was to whip up a suitably impressive number of write-in votes for Johnson as a show of support from the state, with Boutin confidently announcing to the press that the President would win as high as ninety percent of the vote against the upstart Senator. In order to achieve this, Boutin, King, and McIntyre had had the New Hampshire Democratic Party committee endorse Johnson, effectively merging the re-election campaign and the state party in a legally questionable move. The Johnson team also sent pledge cards to every Democrat in the state, which one could sign and mail to the White House in a promise that they would write in Lyndon Johnson on election day.

    Both of these initiatives backfired spectacularly.

    Many New Hampshire Democrats complained that they did not necessarily want their membership dues to go towards Johnson's re-election fund, and the Johnson team was dogged by demands to show proof that the finances of the state party and the re-election campaign were being kept separate. They were also met by accusations that they were violating the party's policy of official neutrality in the primaries by siding with Johnson. Likewise, Hoeh and the McCarthy campaign attacked the pledge cards as an example of the overbearing Johnson trying to browbeat voters into submission, and began to cast the election as Washington authoritarianism against New Hampshire free-thinking. Refusing to acknowledge the McCarthy campaign for fear that it would legitimize it, the Johnson team never came up with a convincing rebuttal, and the pledge cards remained a viciously effective talking point of the McCarthy campaign long after they had been discontinued. Further problems emerged for the Johnson team through Daniell's frequent legal challenges against the state party in his continued effort to draft Bobby Kennedy. Daniell had begun assembling Kennedy supporters to run in the state's forty-eight delegate slate. However, he had been blocked by the state's attorney general, who had interpreted the New Hampshire law that prevented a draft movement from having an official campaign as also preventing the allowance of delegates specifically supporting a draft candidate. Daniell claimed that the attorney general had only done so on Governor King's orders, and challenged it in the local press, threatening to pursue it into the courts. The problem became moot, however, when Kennedy sent a letter asking Daniell to discontinue the write-in campaign, and followed it up by sending Ted Sorenson to encourage Kennedy supporters to vote for an active candidate, reaffirming Kennedy’s statement that “I will not be a candidate against President Johnson this year under any foreseeable circumstances.” The Draft Kennedy effort folded shortly after, and released a statement endorsing Eugene McCarthy, thereby uniting New Hampshire’s doves without any acrimony [11].

    Meanwhile, the Johnson team were having their own troubles with their delegate slate. Each candidate was supposed to run forty-eight delegates (twenty-four active delegates and another twenty-four as an alternate slate). Not expecting a primary challenge when the slate candidates had first been assembled, the top-heavy Johnson team had not strictly reviewed the delegate process, and they had nearly double the number of delegate candidates than their were positions. On the other hand, Hoeh and Studds had tightly organized the McCarthy slate so that they had exactly forty-eight candidates.

    Meet the Press 1964.jpg
    Meet the Press 1968.jpg

    Four years later: McCarthy on Meet the Press in 1964, when he was under consideration for the vice presidency, and in 1968, when he was under consideration for the presidency.
    After a fundraising tour in Boston, McCarthy arrived for his first day of New Hampshire campaigning in late January. McCarthy opened the campaign in the town of Nashua, in front of a memorial statue to Jack Kennedy. McCarthy elucidated the various reasons he was running, describing in his usual, calm, deliberate way why he believed the Vietnam War was immoral, ineffective, and unconstitutional. The national press was nonplussed however; when McCarthy was asked how he thought his campaign was doing, he replied “all right,” and when he was asked why he did not use a more forceful campaigning style, he retorted that “I don't intend to shout at people around the country.” When asked, McCarthy said that he thought he would be an “adequate” president [12]. With that, he began his canvassing of downtown Nashua, with the press following behind. McCarthy moved at a brisk pace through the area, shaking hands and making conversation, but refused to enter or spend much time in several of the stops Hoeh and Studds had planned. McCarthy breezed through a busy restaurant, believing that people would not want to talk long while they were eating, and refused to enter a salon, claiming that women would not want to be seen by the national press without being made up first [13]. Running well ahead of schedule, McCarthy began to overtake his advance men, and arrived at a factory so that he could meet the workers as they left their shift. Unfortunately, the advance man had been wrong about the time the workers let out, and McCarthy and the press had arrived five minutes after everyone had already left. The situation got worse when the advance man arrived after McCarthy, and started complaining that he was canvassing a non-unionized factory. Following the mid-day disaster, McCarthy held a rally in the evening at a high school gymnasium in Manchester which was well received by the audience. However, McCarthy's national headquarters had not printed off copies of the speech for the national press, leading them to focus more on the factory fiasco in their coverage, and writing off McCarthy's campaign as an amateurish disaster, with many leaving the state to focus on other stories. Despite this, McCarthy was nearly unanimously well-received by New Hampshirites, and left the state eager to return for more campaigning. McCarthy’s family also became involved; Abigail began organized a massive mailing campaign by Women for McCarthy almost singlehandedly, but was considered incredibly touchy and overprotective of ‘her Gene’ by the staff [14]. The McCarthy children, Ellen, Mary, Michael, and Margaret, helped as volunteers, with Mary in particular being praised as an effective youth coordinator and liaison to her father.

    Meanwhile, unbeknownst to the Western world, North Vietnam had witnessed a brief power struggle in the upper echelons of its leadership. The President of North Vietnam (and also the Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam), Hồ Chi Minh, had been marginalized from power along with General Võ Nguyên Giáp. Lê Duẩn, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, had taken control of the North Vietnamese Politburo with his hawk faction. Hồ and Võ had both preferred a strategy of guerrilla warfare and negotiations with South Vietnam and the United States. Lê Duẩn preferred a more militaristic approach, believing that a series of large-scale assaults in support of the South's communist guerrillas (the National Liberation Front, also known as the NLF, or Viet Cong) would eventually overrun the South and inspire its people to revolt. This culminated in the Tet Offensive: a simultaneous assault on nearly every major city in South Vietnam. Americans watched on the evening news as the fighting raged stronger than ever, and the NLF nearly took control of the American embassy in the South Vietnamese capital of Saigon. While the Tet Offensive was a tactical defeat for the North, as it failed to inspire a revolution or conquer the South outright, it was a strategic and political catastrophe for Lyndon Johnson. His assurances that victory was in sight were proven to be false, and his support plummeted overnight, empowering McCarthy's campaign.

    The New Hampshire campaign became energized by a fresh flow of volunteers and donations at the same time that Hoeh and Studds whipped up a more organized quality to the campaign [15]. Emulating the state-based confederated campaign structure of the national McCarthy organization, Hoeh and Studds created a largely autonomous McCarthy committee in nearly every town in the state. However, unlike the national campaign, the headquarters office in Concord had clearly defined organizational structure, and a filing system that was able to accommodate a large number of volunteers. Most notably, students came on weekends and breaks, with many of them cutting their hair and dressing formally so as to not scare off the average conservative suburban New Hampshirite. Operating under the slogan “Get Neat and Clean for Gene,” often condensed into “Get Clean for Gene,” Hoeh was nearly obsessed with preventing a media disaster that played into the public's fears of the youth. However, no such disaster emerged, and the number of student volunteers seemed to vindicate McCarthy's objective to bring young people's faith into the nation's institutions and political process, while at the same time closing the generational gap through canvassing. McCarthy's relatively quick and infrequent visits made it so he took on an almost mythic quality to the young volunteers of his own campaign, who had a greater appreciation for his professorial nature than the national press. There was an uncomfortable, silent understanding between McCarthy and his student volunteers that the only reason they were working together was to end the Vietnam War. Nevertheless, they grew on each other, and McCarthy, initially put off by their youthful exuberance, began to call them ‘his kids.’ Additionally, the arrival of Richard Goodwin, a Kennedy loyalist and speechwriter, implied at least implicit support from Bobby Kennedy [16]. As the New Hampshire campaign went on, the national press also slowly caught on that something might actually be happening. McCarthy's young volunteers grabbed particular interest, as did the string of celebrities who swung through the state to campaign, canvass, and record ads for McCarthy, most notably Paul Newman. Since the start, offers of support had poured into the national office. After a few months, they finally got someone to start replying to mail.

    With the March 12 voting day closing in, both the McCarthy and Johnson teams began to alter their campaigns. Hoeh and Studds draped the anti-war position in the language of conservatism, haranguing Johnson for raising taxes and causing rapid inflation to cover the costs of the war, and blaming the disproportionate conscription numbers of the black community for causing the race riots and lawlessness plaguing the nation. Having yet to be provided with any official campaign material or photographs by the national headquarters despite asking several times, Hoeh and Studds began making their own campaign material and distributing it around the state. They also hoped to gain an edge in cross-over voting. Republican anti-war moderate George Romney had dropped out of the presidential race following a gaffe where he had told the press that he had been “brainwashed” into supporting the Vietnam War; something that came off as tone-deaf considering the revelations two years earlier of the torture of American prisoners in North Vietnam. Hoping that McCarthy would make a sympathetic statement in order to gain Romney supporters, he instead stayed true to his caustic nature: when asked about Romney's brainwashing comment, McCarthy replied, for him, “a light rinse would've sufficed [17]." On the Johnson side, the early campaign plan of ignoring McCarthy and promoting a rally-around-the-flag mentality fell apart with the Tet Offensive. Boutin and King resorted to red-baiting, accusing McCarthy of being a communist sympathizer and of weakening America's negotiating position with the North Vietnamese. McIntyre, with his base in the state being more liberal urban Democrats, was reluctant to participate in throwing around accusations of communist sympathies, but was eventually forced to present a united front. The Johnson team's tactics backfired yet again, with Hoeh accusing them of engaging in (Joseph) McCarthyism out of desperation to try and trick the voters into not seriously considering the candidates [18].

    As McCarthy swept the state on the eve of voting day, his campaign had turned around to become a media darling. The staying power of effort to Dump Johnson had eventually convinced the press of its seriousness, and Boutin and the Johnson team had been forced to constantly move the goalposts of victory. Because they initially set a Johnson win at ninety percent, the press decided that anything higher than twenty percent would be significant for McCarthy, and emblematic of a rejection of the President. As the campaign went on, the Johnson team eventually dropped their win condition to being in the high sixties, and by election day, sixty percent.

    But they had not even made it to that.

    On the snowy night of March 12, President Lyndon Johnson came in at a little under fifty percent of the vote, while Senator Eugene McCarthy had gotten forty-two percent. Including Republican write-ins, McCarthy came within three hundred votes of beating the President. But, what was more, McCarthy completely obliterated Johnson in the delegate count: the bloated number of Johnson delegates had cut into each others votes, leaving McCarthy with over eighty percent of the delegates, despite having lost the popular vote.

    Even while technically losing, it was one of the greatest upsets in American political history [19].

    Four days later, Bobby Kennedy finally announced that he would be running for president. While Kennedy had decided he would enter regardless of the results of the New Hampshire primary, his timing was denounced by McCarthy's supporters, who accused him of being a gutless opportunist. Kennedy was tarred and feathered in liberal editorials, while McCarthy's youth organizer, Sam Brown, recalled, “We woke up after the New Hampshire primary like it was Christmas Day. When we went down to the tree, Bobby Kennedy had stolen our Christmas presents.” McCarthy, elated by his pseudo-victory in New Hampshire, refused to drop out, his past pronouncements about Kennedy now forgotten, and his position against Johnson stronger than ever.

    Regardless of who would win the nomination, they would be in for a fight.


    [1] Before asking McCarthy in the fall of 1967, Lowenstein and Gans went through a myriad of different candidates, including Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas from the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Frank Church of Idaho, Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin, Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon, Senator Vance Hartke of Indiana, former General James Gavin, and Representative Don Edwards of California, all of whom declined. McGovern also recommended Senator Lee Metcalf of Montana, a friend of McCarthy's, who declined as well. John Kenneth Galbraith, a member of ADA, ambassador, and famous economist was willing to run, but he was disqualified because he was not an American citizen by birth.

    [2] While McCarthy might have deserved his reputation as a lazy senator, many of his colleagues were selling his competence short. The lowest percentage of the vote McCarthy had ever gotten was thirty-seven percent, which he won in the four-way 1948 Democratic primary for the Fourth Congressional District, his first ever election. After that, McCarthy won a landslide victory in every election he ever ran in, with his lowest margin of victory after that being fifty-nine percent. While he may not have been a very proactive senator – something that was not helped by the fact that he intentionally cultivated a reputation for aloofness – he had the uncanny ability to whip up huge margins from a Republican-leaning district in what was then considered a swing state.

    [3] The Kennedy-McCarthy relationship was especially complicated at this point. McCarthy clearly disliked Kennedy, but also acknowledged that he would be a much better candidate to challenge Johnson. Yet, when McCarthy was trying to convince him to jump in, he kept being rude and dismissive toward him. Some thought that McCarthy was trying to intentionally aggravate Kennedy into running, so that he would not have to do it himself.

    [4] Why did McCarthy wait so long to run for President after his meeting with Lowenstein? The most obvious answer would be that he was still waiting on Kennedy to enter the race, but it has been suggested that McCarthy did not take Lowenstein and Gans seriously, and that being approached by senior, well-known liberal lobbyists like Galbraith and Rauh convinced him of the feasibility.

    [5] In the aftermath of the CCD conference, the highest ranking politicians willing to be publicly associated with McCarthy was Sandra Hoeh, the Chair of the 2nd Congressional District of New Hampshire for the State Democratic Committee, and Bronson La Follette, the Attorney General of Wisconsin.

    [6] The position of campaign coordinator was also left unfilled by McCarthy. It would remain vacant for over a month before Gans was appointed to it in January of 1968. McCarthy also did not clearly appoint a Chief of Staff. His Senate aide, Jerry Eller, took on the position informally.

    [7] When told about Daniell’s draft effort in New Hampshire, Kennedy replied, “Robert Kennedy spelled R-O-B-E-R-T-K-E-N-N-E-D-Y is not a write-in candidate.”

    [8] What caused McCarthy to change his mind? Blair Clark, as it turns out. Clark was pushing for McCarthy to enter the New Hampshire primary harder than anyone. In late December, the two of them were going to take a plane on a quick trip to New York from Washington, but inclement weather caused the flight to be cancelled. Taking a train instead, Clark was able to lay out over several hours why entering New Hampshire was a good idea. Without that train ride, McCarthy would not have gone in on New Hampshire.

    [9] Martin Luther King Jr. did indeed go on to support McCarthy, making a statement for him that was used in radio campaign ads in New Hampshire. However, King also told McCarthy that his political support would have to be kept quiet for the most part since he was still pressuring Johnson on various policy actions. King's political involvement in 1968 was cut short by his assassination, and it is unclear if he would have ultimately preferred McCarthy or Kennedy. However, his widow, Coretta Scott King, was personal friends with Abigail McCarthy, and may have privately preferred McCarthy over Bobby Kennedy, though this is unclear.

    [10] In Johnson’s New Hampshire chain of command, King and McIntyre were officially co-chairs of his re-election campaign. However, Boutin was the de facto leader, and controlled most of the campaign's decisions.

    [11] Kennedy did not go so far as endorsing McCarthy, saying that he did not think that it would “further the cause of peace.” The more likely reasons were that he was still deciding on whether he would enter or not himself, and he still very much disliked McCarthy.

    [12] The national press frequently and negatively compared Gene McCarthy to George Romney, the moderate Republican Governor of Michigan who was also running for president. Romney was much more of a politician's politician, and while popular nationwide, came off as a tourist who did not really understand the Granite State and its people to New Hampshirites.

    [13] Politically aware or lazy campaigner? McCarthy hated the politicking part of politics, and loathed the demagoguery of selling himself as a candidate. Sometimes this may have helped him, and other times it probably hurt him. For example, McCarthy typically refused to do any campaigning in the morning, frequently skipping opportunities to meet night shift workers as they left their jobs, since he thought they would not want to talk to anyone. Also, he liked taking his time to start the day in the morning and did not want to be disturbed.

    [14] One ugly episode involving Abigail McCarthy recalled by McCarthy’s then-press secretary Seymour Hersh is that she complained there were too many “Hebrews” on the staff.

    [15] Hoeh and Studds were initially promised a million dollars from the national campaign headquarters. Ultimately, they did not directly receive any money from the national headquarters, with Blair Clark and financier Howard Stein paying for many of the initial expenses. McCarthy's New Hampshire campaign floated almost entirely on donations and volunteer work, with final expenses coming up to around five hundred thousand dollars.

    [16] Richard Goodwin's exact role in the McCarthy campaign remains something of a mystery. Some think that he came to New Hampshire to work for McCarthy because Kennedy refused to run, while McCarthy himself seemed to believe that Goodwin was a spy sent by Kennedy to keep tabs on him. Goodwin would later abandon McCarthy when Kennedy announced, but would return to work for McCarthy following Kennedy's assassination.

    [17] Romney was also mocked by the colourful Governor of Ohio, Jim Rhodes, who commented, “watching George Romney run for the presidency was like watching a duck try to make love to a football.”

    [18] The two McCarthys of American politics had a strange relationship. In the 1950s, Gene agreed to debate Joe in what the media taglined as McCarthy vs. McCarthy, with Gene arguing that communists should not be barred from any occupation except for those that would be handling top secret government files. However, Gene was in favour of banning the Communist Party of the United States of America in his early career, and went along with most anti-communist measures. Gene would be confused with Joe even past death, with the 2008 Democratic National Convention memorializing him as Joseph McCarthy. It did not help that his full name was Eugene Joseph McCarthy.

    [19] So why is it that McCarthy nearly won in conservative, hawkish New Hampshire? Well, as it turns out, because most of McCarthy's voters were not actually voting for him, but were rather voting against Johnson. Exit polling in New Hampshire showed that the majority of voters actually wanted someone more hawkish on Vietnam, and most of those who voted for McCarthy said they did not know what his position on the war was. In fact, eighteen percent of all of McCarthy's voters in the primaries would go on to support the third party bid of archsegregationist Southern Democrat George Wallace in the general election. While Johnson was able to hold on to the 'default support' of more voters, Hoeh and Studd's decision to phrase things around fiscal conservatism and emphasizing leadership qualities rather than war policies paid dividends on election night. IOTL, both Hoeh and Studds would later run for Congress. Hoeh unsuccessfully in 1968, and Studds successfully in 1972.
     
    Last edited:
    McCarthy Speaks: Announcement of Candidacy and Conference of Concerned Democrats Keynote Speech
  • McCarthy Speaks: Announcement of Candidacy and Conference of Concerned Democrats Keynote Speech

    By 1967, Eugene McCarthy was one of the most experienced politicians in the Senate, if not in years, then in the breadth of his knowledge. He had served on nearly every major committee in that illustrious body, and several of the minor ones too.

    He was also bored.

    Having been exiled from President Johnson's inner circle after withdrawing his candidacy for the vice presidential nomination in 1964, McCarthy had become increasingly dissatisfied with politics, and Johnson's attempted solutions to the problems facing the nation. The notable of these dissatisfying issues was the Vietnam War. By 1966, McCarthy felt the extent that the United States would have to go to win the war outright would be worse than the likely communist victory that would come with a negotiated withdrawal. Approached by Allard Lowenstein of the Dump Johnson Movement and the Conference of Concerned Democrats (CCD) in October, McCarthy began seriously considering a presidential run. McCarthy delayed his decision, but was eventually convinced by his own internal determination, as well as additional encouragement from his daughter, Mary, and senior members of Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), such as Joseph Rauh Jr. and John Kenneth Galbraith. His initial plan was to perform well enough to scare Johnson into supporting a peace plank at the upcoming Democratic National Convention, then fade into obscurity.

    McCarthy's announcement speech was given on November 30, 1967. It was considered vague and confusing by the reporters who had assembled to hear it. McCarthy did not outright declare that he was running for president, merely stating that he would be entering into certain primaries. People were uncertain if he was really challenging Johnson for the presidency, or if he was acting as some sort of regional favourite son for the Midwest and West. Many considered him a stalking horse for Kennedy. Some even thought he was secretly working for Johnson as a sort of controlled opposition within the Democratic Party.

    While his announcement speech did a good job of elucidating his concerns with the state of the union, it was considered one of his most forgettable speeches.

    McCarthy 1967 with Fair Campaign Practices Committee w Felix M Putterman and Samuel J Archibald.jpg

    McCarthy with Felix M. Putterman and Samuel J. Archibald of the Fair Campaign Practices Committee (FCPC), shortly before announcing his entry into several of the 1968 Democratic primaries. Small reform groups like the FCPC were some of the most receptive to aiding Dump Johnson organizations like the CCD.

    "I intend to enter the Democratic primaries in Wisconsin, Oregon, California, and Nebraska. The decision with reference to Massachusetts and New Hampshire will be made within two weeks. In so far as Massachusetts is concerned, it will depend principally upon the outcome of the meeting of the Democratic State Committee this weekend.

    Since I first said that I thought the issue of Vietnam and other related issues should be raised in the primaries, I have talked to Democratic party leaders in twenty-six states, to candidates – especially Senate candidates – who will be up for re-election next year, and to many other persons.

    My decision to challenge the President’s position has been strengthened by recent announcements from the Administration of plans for continued escalation and intensification of the war in Vietnam and, on the other hand, by the absence of any positive indications or suggestions for a compromise or negotiated political settlement. I am concerned that the Administration seems to 5 have set no limits on the price that it will pay for military victory.

    Let me summarize the cost of the war up to this point:
    - the physical destruction of much of a small, weak nation by the military operations of the most powerful nation on this earth;
    - 100,000 to 150,000 civilian casualties in South Vietnam alone, according to the estimates of the Senate subcommittee on refugees;
    - the uprooting and fracturing of the social structure of South Vietnam, where one-fourth to one-third of the population are now refugees;
    - for the United States, 15,058 combat dead and 94,469 wounded through November 25, 1967;
    - a monthly expenditure by the United States of between $2 and $3 billion on the war;

    I am also concerned over the bearing of the war on other areas of United States responsibility:
    - the failure to appropriate adequate funds for the poverty program, for housing, for education and other national needs, and the prospect of additional cuts as a condition for congressional approval of a tax bill;
    - the drastic reduction of our foreign aid program in other parts of the world;
    - the dangerous rise of inflation and, as an indirect but serious consequence, the devaluation of the British pound which is more important east of the Suez than is the British navy.

    There is growing evidence of a deepening moral crisis in America: discontent, frustration, and a disposition to extralegal – if not illegal – manifestations of protest.

    I am hopeful that a challenge may alleviate the sense of political helplessness and restore to many people a belief in the processes of American politics and of American government. On college campuses especially, but also among other thoughtful adult Americans, it may counter the growing sense of alienation from politics which is currently reflected in a tendency to withdraw in either frustration or cynicism, to talk of nonparticipation and to make threats of support for a third party or fourth party or other irregular political movements.

    I do not see in my move any great threat to the unity and the strength of the Democratic party.

    The issue of the war in Vietnam is not a separate issue but is one which must be dealt with in the configuration of problems in which it occurs. It is within this context that I intend to take the case to the people of the United States.

    I am not for peace at any price but for an honorable, rational, and political solution to this war; a solution which I believe will enhance our world position, encourage the respect of our allies and potential adversaries, which will permit us to give the necessary attention to our other commitments abroad – both military and nonmilitary – and leave us with both resources and moral energy to deal effectively with the pressing domestic problems of the United States itself. In this total effort, I believe we can restore to this nation a clearer sense of purpose and of dedication to the achievement of that purpose."

    McCarthy Business Executives Move for Vietnam Peace.jpg

    McCarthy gives a speech to the Business Executives Move for Vietnam Peace. Johnson's refusal to either raise taxes or cut spending to pay for the Vietnam War began to wreak economic havoc in 1966, mostly in the form of runaway inflation. A surprisingly large number of Wall Street and big business executives financed McCarthy's campaign, if only to remove Johnson.
    After McCarthy's underwhelming announcement speech, Allard Lowenstein was looking to make a splash. Lowenstein had delayed the annual CCD convention, which had been scheduled for the summer of 1967, in the hopes that he would have a Dump Johnson presidential candidate by the end of the fall who could be the keynote speaker for the event. His hopes had paid off when McCarthy agreed to run, and the two headed to Chicago for the CCD convention, now planned for December 2nd, at the Conrad Hilton Hotel. McCarthy had not finished preparing his statement by the time he had arrived in Chicago, and was still writing it when he was supposed to be on stage. Looking to keep the crowd occupied, Lowenstein gave his own speech, which was considered the best of his career by his followers, but demagogic populist drivel to McCarthy. After being practically dragged off stage, Lowenstein left the podium to McCarthy, whose cerebral, academic-moralistic look analysis of Vietnam severely underwhelmed the excited crowd.

    McCarthy's CCD address is generally considered the worst of his career, completely failing to read the room or work off of Lowenstein's. However, McCarthy was perhaps alone in thinking it was the best speech of his career. Despite the polarizing opinions, it was reflective of the style and sensibility that McCarthy wanted to bring to the campaign, and his unbending belief in his own political abilities and style.

    McCarthy at the Conrad Hilton Chicago 1968.jpg

    McCarthy greets an applauding crowd at the Conrad Hilton Hotel in Chicago. The Conrad Hilton would serve as both the convention hall for the CCD's annual meeting in 1967, and as McCarthy's headquarters for the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

    "In 1952, in this city of Chicago, the Democratic party nominated as its candidate for the presidency Adlai Stevenson.

    His promise to his party and to the people of the country then was that he would talk sense to them. And he did in the clearest tones. He did not speak above the people, as his enemies charged, but he raised the hard and difficult questions and proposed the difficult answers. His voice became the voice of America. He lifted the spirit of this land. The country, in his language, was purified and given direction.

    Before most other men, he recognized the problem of our cities and called for action.

    Before other men, he measured the threat of nuclear war and called for a test ban treaty.

    Before other men, he anticipated the problem of conscience which he saw must come with maintaining a peacetime army and a limited draft, and urged the political leaders of this country to put their wisdom to task.

    In all of these things he was heard by many but not followed, until under the presidency of John F. Kennedy his ideas were revived in new language and in a new spirit. To the clear sound of the horn was added the beat of a steady and certain drum.

    John Kennedy set free the spirit of America. The honest optimism was released. Quiet courage and civility became the mark of American government, and new programs of promise and of dedication were presented: the Peace Corps, the Alliance for Progress, the promise of equal rights for all American and not just the promise, but the beginning of the achievement of that promise.

    All the world looked to the United States with new hope, for here was youth and confidence and an openness to the future. Here was a country not being held by the dead hand of the past, not frightened by the violent hand of the future which was grasping at the world.

    This was the spirit of 1963.

    What is the spirit of 1967? What is the mood of America and of the world toward America today?

    It is a joyless spirit – a mood of frustration, of anxiety, of uncertainty.

    In place of the enthusiasm of the PEace Corps among the young people of America, we have protests and demonstrations.

    In place of the enthusiasm of the Alliance for Progress, we have distrust and disappointment.

    Instead of the language of promise and of hope, we have in politics today a new vocabulary in which the critical word is war: war on poverty, war on ignorance, war on crime, war on pollution. None of these problems can be solved by war but only be persistent, dedicated, and thoughtful attention.

    But we do have one war which is properly called a war – the war in Vietnam, which is central to all of the problems of America.

    A war of questionable legality and questionable constitutionality .

    A war which is diplomatically indefensible; the first war in this century in which the United States, which at its founding made an appeal to the decent opinion of mankind in the Declaration of Independence, finds itself without the support of the decent opinion of mankind.

    A war which cannot be defended in the context of the judgment of history. It is being presented in the context of an historical judgment of an era which is past. Munich appears to be the starting point of history for the Secretary of State and for those who attempt to support his policies. What is necessary is a realization that the United States is a part of the movement of history itself; that it cannot stand apart, attempting to control the world by imposing covenants and treaties and by violent military intervention; that our role is not to police the planet but to use military strength with restraint and within limits, while at the same time we make available to the world the great power of our economy, of our knowledge, and of our good will.

    A war which is not defensible even in military terms; which runs contrary to the advice of our greatest generals – Eisenhower, Ridgway, Bradley, and MacArthur – all of whom admonished us against becoming involved in a land war in Asia. Events have proved them right, as estimate after estimate as to the tie of success and the military commitment necessary to success has had to be revised – always upward: more troops, more extensive bombing, a widening and intensification of the war. Extension and intensification have been the rule, and projection after projection of success have been proved wrong.

    With the escalation of our military commitment has come a parallel of overleaping of objectives from protecting South Vietnam, to nation building in South Vietnam, to protecting all of Southeast Asia, and ultimately to suggesting that the safety and security of the United States itself is at staje.

    Finnally, it is a war which is morally wrong. The most recent statement of objectives cannot be accepted as an honest judgment as to why we are in Vietnam. It has become increasingly difficult to justify the methods we are using and the instruments of war which we are using as we have moved from limited targets and somewhat restricted weapons to greater variety and more destructive instruments of war, and also have extended the area of operations almost to the heart of North Vietnam.

    Even assuming that both objectives and methods can be defended, the war cannot stand the test of proportion and of prudent judgment. It is no longer possible to prove that the good that may come with what is called victory, or projected as victory, is proportionate to the loss of life and property and to other disorders that follow from this war.

    Let me summarize the cost of the war up to this point:
    - the physical destruction of much of a small, weak nation by the military operations of the most powerful nation on earth;
    - 100,000 to 150,000 civilian casualties in South Vietnam alone, according to the estimates of the Senate subcommittee on refugees;
    - the uprooting and fracturing of the social structure of South Vietnam, where one-fourth to one-third of the population are now refugees;
    - for the United States, 15,058 combat dead and 94,469 wounded through November 25, 1967;
    - a monthly expenditure by the United States of between $2 and $3 billion on the war.

    Beyond all of these considerations, two further judgments must be passed: a judgment of individual conscience, and another in the broader context of the movement of history itself.

    The problem of individual conscience is, I think, set most clearly before us in the words of Charles Péguy in writing about the Dreyfus case:

    '...a single injustice, a single crime, a single illegality, if it is officially recorded, confirmed, a single wrong to humanity, a single wrong to justice and to right, particularly if it is universally, legally, nationally, commodiously accepted... a single crime shatters and is sufficient to shatter the whole social contract... a single legal crime, a single dishonorable act will bring about the loos of one's honor, the dishonor of a whole people.'

    And the broader historical judgment as suggested by Arnold Toynbee in his comments on Rome's war with Carthage:

    'Nemesis is a potent goddess... War posthumously avenges the dead on the survivors, and the vanquished on the victors. The nemesis of war is intrinsic. It did not need the invention of the atomic weapon to make this apparent. It was illustrated more than two thousand years before our time, by Hannibal's legacy to Rome.'

    Hannibal gained a 'posthumous victory over Rome. Although he failed to defeat the great nation militarily because of the magnitude of her military manpower and solidity of the structure of the Roman Commonwealth, he did succeed in inflicting grievous wounds on the Commonwealth's body social and economic. They were so grievous that they festered into the revolution that was precipitated by Tiberius Gracchus and hat did not cease till it was arrested by Augustus a hundred years later... This revolution,' Toynbee said, 'was the nemesis of Rome's superficially triumphant career of military conquest,' and ended, of course, the Republic and substituted for it the spirit of the dictators and of the Caesars.

    Those of us who are gathered here tonight are not advocating peace at any price. We are willing to pay a high price for peace – for an honorable, rational, and political solution to this war; a solution which will enhance our world position, which will permit us to give the necessary attention to our other commitments abroad, both military and non-military, and leave us with both human and phyical resources and with moral energy to deal effectively with the pressing domestic problems of the United States itself.

    I see little evidence that the Administration has set any limits on the price which it will pay for a military victory which becomes less and less sure and more hollow and empty in promise.

    The scriptural promise of the good life is one in which the old men see visions and the young men dream dreams. In the context of this war and all of its implications, the young men of America do not dream dreams, but many live in the nightmare of moral anxiety, of concern and great apprehension, and the old men, instead of visions which they can offer to the young, are projecting, in the language of the Secretary of State, a specter of one billion Chinese threatening the peace and safety of the world – a frightening and intimidating future.

    The message from the Administration today is a message of apprehension, a message of fear, yes – even a message of fear of fear.

    This is not the real spirit of America. I do not believe that it is. This is a time to test the mood and spirit:
    To offer in place of doubt – trust.
    In place of expediency – right judgment.
    In place of ghettos, let us have neighborhoods and communities.
    In place of incredibility – integrity.
    In place of murmuring, let us have clear speech; let us again hear America singing.
    In place of disunity, let us have dedication of purpose.
    In place of near despair, let us have hope.

    This is the promise of greatness that was started for us by Adlai Stevenson and which was brought to form and positive action in the words and actions of John Kennedy.

    Let us pick up again those lost strands and weave them again into the fabric of America.

    Let us sort out the music from the sounds and again respond to the trumpet and the steady drum."
     
    Last edited:
    Chapter Three - Sympathy For The Devil
  • Chapter Three - Sympathy For The Devil

    With the entry of Bobby Kennedy into the Democratic primaries, the anti-war vote was split between two camps. Kennedy faced a harsh initial backlash, resurrecting accusations of political ruthlessness that had haunted him since the 1950s. However, his decision to finally enter the race prompted many of the few professional political operators that McCarthy had to defect, leaving his already disorganized campaign in even further disarray. Most notably, Allard Lowenstein, the driving force behind the Dump Johnson Movement, drifted into Kennedy's orbit as a political advisor, despite officially still supporting McCarthy. On top of that, McCarthy dropped like a stone in the polls, as Kennedy began absorbing his default support with anti-war voters. But, while Kennedy had the reputation of being Johnson's nemesis, McCarthy was the one who was better positioned to challenge him in the primaries; due to Kennedy's late entry and Johnson's Rose Garden strategy, McCarthy would be the only candidate to appear on the ballot in the Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts primaries. For the first time in his campaign, McCarthy explicitly stated that he was running to be the Democratic nominee, to unseat Johnson at the National Democratic Convention in Chicago, and become President of the United States.

    Sensing the danger of two anti-war candidates running against each other, Richard Goodwin and Blair Clark tried to unify the two camps. Kennedy’s entry had been a double-edged sword in that it had split the base, but that it brought significantly more people over to an anti-war position by virtue of the Kennedy mystique alone. A plan was drawn up where the two anti-war candidates would run in half of the primaries each, with the other’s support. They would then hold a winner-take-all competition in the California primary, where the loser would drop out and endorse the winner. There was also talk of sweetening the pot for McCarthy by promising him the position of Secretary of State if Kennedy were to win. Ted Kennedy was recruited by the collaborators to rendezvous in Wisconsin with McCarthy at the Green Bay, Wisconsin hotel in which he was staying. Those in McCarthy’s closest circle – his family and Senate aide Jerry Eller – were outraged that Goodwin and Clark (as well as other collaborators, such as campaign coordinator Curtis Gans, assistant campaign manager Jessica Tuchman, and youth coordinator Sam Brown) would be working with the Kennedys on anything, and initially blocked them from meeting with McCarthy, despite him having previously agreed to it. Losing his patience with Abigail, Clark barged past her into the hotel. McCarthy’s daughter Mary stopped him, while also convincing her father to go through with the meeting with Ted. After some chilly small talk, Ted began to push forward, but before he could even open the suitcase with the details of the plan, McCarthy waved him off. Instead, he suggested that Bobby go into the primaries he had not yet entered in Florida, West Virginia, and Louisiana [1], and that after he had successfully toppled Johnson and was elected president, Bobby could run in 1972. “I only want one term. Then Bobby can take over.” Otherwise, “we need no help.” As the disappointed Ted Kennedy left to be harassed by the press outside, McCarthy bitterly remarked, despite refusing to listen to the plan, “That’s the way they are. When it comes down to it they never offer anything real. [2]”

    Meanwhile, various factions of the New Left were making their own plans for the Democratic Convention. Broader plans to hold protests in Chicago were frustrated by more moderate anti-war activists, were concerned that a protest would hurt the political chances of McCarthy and Kennedy at the convention. This left only the more radical groups willing to organize a protest in Chicago. Meeting over the weekend of March 23-24 in Lake Villa, Illinois, the revolutionary Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the absurdist Youth International Party (the Yippies), revolutionary pacifist activists from the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam (the Mobe), and various Black Power and smaller New Left groups came together, with the meeting presided over by Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, and Dave Dellinger, the former two of SDS, and the latter of the Mobe. Hayden and Davis were cagey on whether they were calling for violent protest or not, and while officially denouncing political violence, they described the protests in Chicago as being a, “massive confrontation with our government” and an “attack on the Democratic convention” signalling “the final days of militancy.” The convention voted in favour of a motion to express their opposition to both McCarthy and Kennedy as being part of the bourgeois liberal establishment, before deliberating on their course of action for Chicago [3], with the convention ultimately voting to organize local political action rather than a march on the Windy City. Refusing to accept the results, Hayden waited for those in disagreement to leave, before putting it to a vote again and having the motion rescinded. Those remaining at the convention dispersed without making a plan for Chicago; the Black Power groups decided that protesting in Chicago would not be in their interest, while the Yippies decided they would organize their own protest in Chicago titled the Festival of Life. The Yippies' leaders, Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, declared that their main program in Chicago would be a protest to eliminate pay toilets.

    McCarthy and Ted Kennedy full.jpg

    Of all the Kennedys, McCarthy got along best with Ted, which was not saying much. The most notable confrontations between the two were over McCarthy's conduct during the vote on the Kennedy Amendment of the Voting Rights Act, and their brief, failed meeting to discuss a possible coalition between McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy during the 1968 Democratic primaries.

    Having moved on to Wisconsin, McCarthy began the next step in his campaign.

    Always more opposed to the Vietnam War than New Hampshire and neighbouring his home state of Minnesota, Wisconsin had clear advantages in McCarthy's favour. Midge Miller, the third highest ranking member of the CCD after Lowenstein and Gans, had been serving as the state campaign manager for McCarthy, and had prepared everything for his arrival. Goodwin and new recruit Jeremy Larner devised a speechwriting system where they would write a Kennedy-style speech describing a problem followed by three solutions before sending it off to McCarthy, who would then cut it down to a skeletal version and incorporate it into his usual, dry lecture-speeches which would then be mimeographed and sent off to Wisconsin's newspapers [4]. Thirteen thousand canvassers had been assembled – most of whom were students – each with their own regional captain who had broken down the state into canvassing districts. Due to Republicans being over to cross over in the Wisconsin primary, every residence in the state would be able to be canvassed. McCarthy’s efforts were also bolstered by the supporter of Midwest women’s and Catholic groups who he had grown familiar with, frequently through Abigail [5].
    Running nearly the same campaign as he had in New Hampshire, McCarthy began to canvass the state with a growing entourage of academics, pundits, journalists, and hangers-on. The most notable of these was the famous poet Robert Lowell, who became his closest confidante on the campaign trail. Appealing to rural farmers, college students, liberal intellectuals, suburban moderates, and business executives concerned with the morality and cost of the war, McCarthy had assembled an unbeatable coalition (at least for Wisconsin); not only was he polling at over sixty percent over Johnson, but pro-McCarthy, anti-war candidates were practically guaranteed to win a spot on the delegation slate with an outright majority of the popular vote, unlike in New Hampshire, where the McCarthy slate only won because of poor planning on the part of the Johnson team.

    However, a schism emerged in the McCarthy staff over an incredibly sensitive issue: McCarthy had been intentionally avoiding the ghettos. Despite his staunch support for desegregation and the implementation of the findings of the Kerner Commission to improve the well-being of the black community, McCarthy’s liberalism was steeped in a tradition of individualism that made him reluctant to address racial politics directly. McCarthy considered it demagogic, distasteful, and overly-generalizing to address an entire racial or ethnic group as one voting bloc, and mocked Kennedy’s efforts to appeal to, as McCarthy put it, “twenty-six separate communities to deal with twenty-six varieties of Americans – like twenty-six types of ice cream.” Instead, McCarthy said, he would “address all Americans as individuals.” In practice, this meant that McCarthy frequented black political groups, but avoided black ghettos, in part because of his beliefs, but also for more cynical reasons: McCarthy felt that publicly identifying himself with black voters would hurt him with his white middle class base, and wrote off all black voters as unwinnable due to their loyalty to the Kennedys that he felt was beyond any reason. This resulted in an ultimatum from a faction of his staff with his press secretary, Seymour Hersh, as their spokesman. They demanded that McCarthy canvass the Milwaukee ghetto, or they would leave the campaign. McCarthy refused, and Hersh, along with assistant press secretary, Mary Lou Oates, resigned, along with around two dozens members of his staff. As a tardy reaction, McCarthy made a speech firmly in favour of civil rights shortly after, and went on a walking tour of the Milwaukee ghetto, but only on a winter day when nobody was outside and at a pace that left the press winded.

    But, for all that, the Wisconsin primary would be an anti-climax. On March 31, two days before voting day, President Johnson made a public address announcing a bombing halt, imploring North Vietnam to negotiate a peace, and, most importantly of all, that he would not be running for re-election in 1968.
    To Johnson’s dismay, the news was received with widespread celebration.

    In the aftermath, Wisconsin’s turnout was depressed with many not feeling a need to come out to vote against Johnson after he had already left the race. McCarthy would still win fifty-six percent of the vote, against thirty-five percent for Johnson, and six percent in Kennedy write-ins. Leaving the national press waiting, McCarthy instead did a meandering, long-form interview with a local news channel, limiting his personal coverage, but delighting the Badger State, with a boost in Midwestern polls carrying him to the next primary in Indiana.

    However, the primaries were interrupted when the country was rocked by the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., sparking a wave of race riots across the country. A rare exception had been in Indianapolis, where Kennedy’s calls for peace while on the campaign trail in the city had soothed tensions that would have turned violent without him. McCarthy had been an acquaintance of King’s, and their wives had been friends, but McCarthy was reluctant to go to King’s funeral. He felt that it would be a political theatre where he would be forced to compete with Kennedy, and he had to be convinced that to not attend would be political suicide. In the end, McCarthy went, but left early, while Kennedy stayed for a march after the funeral to extemporize on stage about King’s legacy. Not wishing to politicize their friendship, Abigail declined offers by Coretta Scott King to be on the airport tarmac as they brought down Dr. King’s body, and further declined to go to the funeral home with her. Instead, she went to the King residence to help prepare dinner for the hundreds of visitors passing through. Among those in the packed house were two Kennedy staffers who did not recognize Abigail, discussing how to best destroy her husband’s campaign.

    The relationship between the Kings and the McCarthys was never revealed to the public.

    McCarthy MLK Funeral.jpg

    McCarthy at the funeral of Martin Luther King Jr. McCarthy believed it was morally reprehensible to take advantage of King's death for political gain; he never discussed the close relationship between their wives, never publicized the fact that King had supported him in the New Hampshire primary, and had to be convinced to attend King's public funeral.

    The rest of April represented a transitional phase in the election. Running unopposed, McCarthy won the April 23 primary in Pennsylvania, but the delegate slate remained under the control of the pro-Johnson Pennsylvania Democratic Party leadership. Four days later, Vice President Hubert Humphrey announced his candidacy for president. Having entered too late to submit his name into the primaries, Humphrey would instead be forced to rely on the majority of the states that had delegate slates controlled by the party bosses, rather than appointed through a primary election or a caucus. Running as a ‘safe’ candidate who would continue President Johnson’s policies, Humphrey remained vocally supportive of the Vietnam War, despite his private reservations. Considering Kennedy the greater threat, Humphrey began to surreptitiously fund the McCarthy campaign, and kept a low profile as the primaries continued [7]. This left McCarthy and Kennedy as the two clear challengers for the Democratic nomination, but, with Johnson not running, a bombing halt implemented, and negotiations in progress, the fight between them would become a contest of personalities. With it all said and done, Goodwin finally made his long-expected return to the Kennedy campaign, but tore himself away telling McCarthy that he was the frontrunner; Goodwin was mesmerized by the possibilities of McCarthy as a candidate, and feared that Kennedy’s intensity would scare off voters compared to his coolness, in an election year where the public was demanding stability.

    Meanwhile, Richard Nixon continued to sweep the Republican primaries, virtually unchallenged, and virtually unnoticed.

    Kennedy and McCarthy were to have their first head-to-head contest in Indiana. Going into the state, things seemed to be in McCarthy’s favour. Kennedy was considered too liberal, too young, and too close to black people, while McCarthy’s non-existent reputation allowed people to project on to him, and he had months more ground game. Likewise, Eugene Pulliam, the owner of several major newspapers in the state, had a personal vendetta against Kennedy, and vilified him in the press. On top of all that, Indiana’s governor, Roger Branigin, was running as a favourite son and stand-in for Humphrey, and the tightly controlled state party was firmly behind him. Changing tactics, Kennedy became running a law and order campaign in the state, emphasizing his past as the country’s chief law enforcement officer, and dressing, speaking, and generally behaving in a more conservative style. While he kept the same policy positions, his presentation and the policies he spoke most about became dramatically different. For Indiana, Bobby turned himself into Robert.

    As for McCarthy, he was failing to adapt to a campaign where he was not the only candidate on the ballot; a new press secretary, Philip Murphy, had been chosen, by the press team was in disarray after Hersh and Oates’ departure; the Indiana campaign manager, Jim Bogle, felt marginalized by Gans, who was trying to wrest total control of the state operation away from the locals and into the national headquarters; no one could agree on whether to use McCarthy’s old Minnesota ad firm or the campaign firm from New York, and tapes were frequently lost in the shuffle, leaving dead air in time slots the campaign had bought; the encounter in Green Bay had created a rivalry in the national headquarters between those willing and unwilling to work with the Kennedys, and, despite the pleas of his advisors and staff, it was nearly impossible to get McCarthy to sit down for a meeting and approve of a campaign strategy. Because of the national headquarters rivalry, Eller became increasingly protective of McCarthy’s schedule, leaving campaign stops dysfunctional and poorly attended, with McCarthy once giving a full stump speech to three Hoosiers in a shed – the same stump speech he had been using since before New Hampshire. Failing to tailor his presentation to a crowd that was more hawkish and conservative than even New Hampshire, McCarthy continued to target the Vietnam War despite Johnson no longer being in the race, called for the firing of the popular Director of the FBI J. Edgar Hoover without explaining why, and raised eyebrows by saying he would pay the ransom of the USS Pueblo without a fuss. McCarthy’s voting record came back to haunt him, with Kennedy sending out attack ads criticizing his vote against the poll tax amendment of the Civil Rights Act and presenting other positions of his mean to shake his young liberal core supporters. McCarthy’s volunteers, the majority of whom remained college students, became convinced that any and all attacks against their man were smears, once McCarthy revealed the context of his vote against the poll tax amendment, but the ad stayed in circulation. By the time of the primary on May 14, Kennedy had pulled from behind to win the primary with forty-two percent of the vote, as well as winning nearly all of Indiana's delegates . Branigan had placed second with a little under thirty-one percent, while McCarthy placed third with twenty-seven percent. While McCarthy had won the suburbs and college towns, Kennedy won every major city with the help of a crushing eighty-five percent of the black vote [8]. The same night, Kennedy won in the Washington D.C. primary, which McCarthy had not entered. In Ohio, favourite son Stephen Young, an anti-war moderate who was nonetheless supporting Humphrey, won unopposed. When McCarthy declared in a televised speech that winning was not everything. Kennedy, watching from his hotel room, scoffed at the sentiment: “that’s not what they taught me growing up.”

    However, despite his clear victory, there was a feeling still nagging at Kennedy, that McCarthy’s volunteers were more informed, more politically active, and more dedicated than his volunteers. As he headed to the Indianapolis airport diner (the only restaurant open after 1:00AM), he bumped into two McCarthy student volunteers who had missed their flights, Pat Sylvester and Taylor Branch. Asking them to join him for a meal, Kennedy tried to understand why anyone would support a lazy, uninspiring, political dilettante like McCarthy who barely wanted to be president, with Sylvester shooting back against Kennedy’s spotty record on the Vietnam War and his belated entry into the race. The more he tried to convince them, the more they dug in. After talking for over an hour, the three parted ways on good terms, but his failure to convince them to abandon McCarthy was something Kennedy would keep in the back of his mind for the rest of his life.

    McCarthy’s campaign was in equal disarray in the next primary in Nebraska. While the state’s demographics were even more in his favour, being more rural, less black, and closer to Minnesota, his amateur operation buckled under Kennedy’s well-organized efforts. The small but enthusiastic efforts of McCarthy’s Nebraska manager, Andrew Robinson, were hopelessly overwhelmed. Kennedy won an outright majority with close to fifty-two percent of the vote, next to thirty-one for McCarthy, with write-ins for Humphrey and Johnson making up the rest. On the same night, in West Virginia, no candidate had entered, and unpledged delegates won the entirety of the vote.

    It was becoming more and more clear that McCarthy was not running out of an overwhelming desire to be president, or out of a passion for the issues. Rather, he felt that he had a solemn, moral duty to oppose the Vietnam War, and had been reluctantly pressganged into the leadership of the anti-war movement, rather than left to his hopeless one-man crusade against injustice. But, while McCarthy would rather lose and be right than win and be wrong, he would rather win and be wrong than lose to Bobby Kennedy.

    McCarthy in Indiana.jpg

    McCarthy campaigns in Indiana. While McCarthy drew large audiences in college towns, poor planning resulted in a hectic schedule and small crowds.

    Heading for disaster on the West Coast in the Oregon and California primaries, a shake-up occurred in the McCarthy campaign to bring in some of the professionalism it had long lacked. A group of McCarthy’s long-time friends involved in liberal lobbying held an intervention to force him to define the roles and responsibilities in the campaign. The group consisted of Tom Finney, a member of Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford’s law firm and a former CIA agent, Maurice Rosenblatt, a lobbyist for the Committee for a More Effective Congress, Larry Merthan, another lobbyist, John Safer, a real estate executive and the campaign’s one-time finance chairman, and Thomas McCoy, another former CIA agent. Finney was chosen to replace Gans as the national coordinator, resulting in him quitting from the campaign in protest, only to return after being offered co-chairmanship of the California campaign along with its current chair, Gerry Hill. Despite being well-equipped to oversee the Oregon and California primaries, Finney’s appointment sparked a civil war in the national headquarters in Washington D.C., which McCarthy had still yet to set foot in. The title of Chief of Staff constantly alternated between Clark, Finney, and Eller, in office coup and counter-coup, with Clark remaking that the office had more leadership changes than South Vietnam. The majority of the finances from the Wall Street Stevensonians was still unaccounted for, and the entire nationwide effort remained carried on the momentum of enthusiasm, goodwill, and competent state and local organization.

    Fortunately for McCarthy, Oregon was well organized.

    One of the first states to have a solid McCarthy infrastructure, the Oregon operation was run by Howard Morgan, the former chairman of the Oregon Democratic Party state committee. Morgan was considered an excellent campaign manager who was frequently credited with breaking the Republicans’ one-party status in the state, and was an expert at smoothing over intraparty conflict. Working alongside Blain Whipple and Arthur Herzog, the other Oregon co-managers, Morgan was able to maximize McCarthy’s synergy with his key demographic: middle class, well-educated, suburban white voters. Sensing the danger of total defeat if he lost Oregon, McCarthy barnstormed the college towns and suburbs and redefined his campaign from the vague, moralistic, intellectual, anti-Vietnam position of the early primaries. “New Politics” became the new catchphrase, defined by a rejection of all Cold War foreign policy. He contented that Johnson was not the cause of the Vietnam War, but rather he had been adhering to an ideological orthodoxy stretching back to the Second World War that made it inevitable. McCarthy laid these problems at the feet of the Kennedys and their ‘counterinsurgency’ policy, that had been supported by both Jack and Bobby, where America, according to McCarthy, “still set for itself a moral mission in which we took upon ourselves the duty to judge the political systems of other nations and to alter them if we found them wanting.” Because both Democrats and Republicans had accepted this, it, “escaped any sustained and vigorous public judgement.” In Oregon, McCarthy asked the American people to, “pass harsh judgement on obsolete dogmas and irresponsible institutions” by electing him. Likewise, he linked systematic failure to urban poverty and segregation, and called for a policy of rapid desegregation through widespread affordable housing projects and expanding public transportation from the ghettos and inner cities out to the suburbs. Ironically, the candidate most philosophically committed to America’s institutions was calling for their complete overhaul. Further pressing the attack in his new populist style, McCarthy criticized Kennedy for his vacillation on his opposition to the war, his approval of FBI wiretapping of Martin Luther King Jr., and mocking him as childish by joking he promised “to hold his breath unless the people of Oregon voted for him.” Unlike in the early primaries where he tried to be as non-descript as possible, in a campaign stop in the Cow Palace in San Francisco, McCarthy smiled and waved as he marched down the centre aisle up to the podium. Once up there, McCarthy dressed down both Kennedy and Humphrey; he tied them together by pointing out that Kennedy had yet to distance himself from Secretary of State Dean Rusk and former Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara, both initially appointed to the cabinet by Jack Kennedy, and both instrumental in prosecuting the Vietnam War [9]. McCarthy also got additional support from the Teamsters, who had never forgiven Kennedy for going after their boss, Jimmy Hoffa, during his days as attorney general. Despite all this, McCarthy did not entirely abandon his old habits, and once left a reporter waiting on him for an interview while he wrote a poem about wolverines in the other room.

    Meanwhile in the Kennedy camp, they were the ones crippled by internal conflict for once. Representative Edith Green had offered to serve as Kennedy’s campaign manager in the state, but she was combative against efforts by Kennedy’s national team to take control of her operation. McCarthy lampooned the power struggle in the press by comparing Kennedy’s senior advisors to the cigar smoking, backroom dealers that he said he was fighting. Campaigning through the state, Kennedy failed to gain traction, lamenting that, “This state is like one giant suburb. Let’s face it, I appeal best to people who have problems.” The death blow for Kennedy’s efforts in Oregon came when he happened to be on tour at a park near Portland when McCarthy coincidentally arrived at the same time with a bus full of press. Kennedy had been dodging any encounter with McCarthy, and refused to answer the calls for a debate. Looking to avoid a confrontation, Kennedy ran for his car while McCarthy’s speechwriter Jeremy Larner chased after him. The press arrived just in time to get pictures of Kennedy driving off with a cloud of dust behind him.

    On May 28th, McCarthy won his first contested primary, and Bobby became the first Kennedy to lose an election, ever. Oregon delivered forty-four percent of the vote for the man from Minnesota, while Kennedy trailed at thirty-eight. A stunned Kennedy acknowledged his loss in a congratulatory telegram to McCarthy (a courtesy he had never received from the other candidate) and by saying publicly it was, “a serious blow… I’ve lost. I’m not one of those who think that coming in second or third is winning.” When asked what he meant for his campaign, Kennedy replied, “I would say it is not helpful.”

    Few noticed that, on the same night, McCarthy lost in Florida to favourite son George Smathers.

    McCarthy Canoeing in Oregon.jpg

    Making waves: By winning the Oregon primary, McCarthy caused the first loss for a Kennedy in any election ever, destroying the legendary Kennedy invincibility.
    Ironically, the primaries had come down to a final confrontation in California, though with the intense animosity that Goodwin and Clark had been looking to avoid. Looking to raise the stakes and trusting his political instincts, Kennedy declared that he would withdraw his candidacy if he lost the California primary, and that he would be participating in the long-avoided debate with McCarthy. Kennedy’s advisors were nervous. Even with the loss in Oregon, Kennedy was in the lead in California, and McCarthy had much more to gain in exposure than Kennedy if a debate were held. Not only that, but Bobby never came off as well on television as Jack; the energy he gave off was well-received by a crowd or in person, but he seemed fidgety and nervous on television. McCarthy seemed a composed, cool professional on television, making steady, frequent eye contact with the camera, and had grown comfortable with the medium after making more frequent use of it as the primaries went on. Before the deal could be finalized, Kennedy’s team stipulated specific conditions for Kennedy’s participation, including that there would be no live audience, and would instead take a more round-table discussion format moderated by a panel of reporters.

    Adapting to McCarthy’s New Politics, Kennedy began to emphasize his own themes of restoration, moderation, and technocratic realism. He accepted America’s institutions as being sound as they were, and blamed Johnson and only Johnson for the nation’s problems. Rather than calling for a swift negotiation process followed by a prompt American withdrawal like McCarthy, Kennedy began talking of a more gradual withdrawal – but a withdrawal nonetheless – that would leave South Vietnam able to defend itself. Pointing to his work with the Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation, Kennedy believed the best way to go about racial integration would be through local community involvement and the investment of private capital into ghettos. Kennedy thought that once black Americans had greater economic power, integration would naturally follow, and he dismissed McCarthy’s proposed programs as being bloated, naïve, and overly reliant on the government. It was one of the paradoxes of 1968 that racial minorities and the lower class supported Kennedy’s program of gradual integration and private initiative, while the white middle class supported McCarthy’s program of rapid integration and broad government spending.

    Instead of playing it safe like he had in Indiana, Nebraska, and Oregon, Bobby doubled down on his Bobby-ness: Campaign stops in Mexican American, black, and poor white communities were prioritized, while meetings with delegates, union bosses, and other power brokers were delayed or cancelled. Kennedy waved from the back of an open-topped convertible as it drove through city streets, seeming to tempt fate with memories of Dallas. Kennedy’s state team, led by Speaker of the California State Assembly Jesse Unruh, was put under the tight control of the national team; they did not want a repeat of Oregon, where internal disagreements had kneecapped their efficiency. The national team found the Unruh and his people had failed to mobilize or register to vote the black and Mexican American voters who could make all the difference in the election, and began a massive registration drive in the major cities, white working class neighbourhoods, and majority-Latino communities in the Central Valley region [10]. This strategy began to work almost too well, as Kennedy’s team started to worry that his association with racial minorities would start to put off white voters. Unruh reported that hawkish Democrats who would otherwise vote for Humphrey’s state surrogate, Attorney General of California Thomas Lynch, were drifting into the McCarthy camp in a white backlash against Kennedy’s minority supporters, nearly faster than the accelerating rate that McCarthy was losing his furthest left supporters to Kennedy.

    While McCarthy’s college corps of volunteers had originally swamped California with their sheer numbers, the tide had begun to turn with the tidal wave arrival of Kennedy press releases, policy statements, and, most of all, money, into the state. While McCarthy had Paul Newman and Dustin Hoffman, as well as folksy performers like Simon and Garfunkel, Kennedy benefited from a star-studded cast of celebrity endorsements. Likewise, Kennedy took advantage of the internal divisions in the campaign and discontent with Gans’ replacement with Finney, who many within the McCarthy campaign was too much of a political insider and too chummy with members of the Johnson Administration. Andrew Robinson, McCarthy’s Nebraska manager, defected to Kennedy, as did the executive director of his national finance committee, and one of his top committee leaders in northern California. Hoping to stop Kennedy from preventing his ascension to the presidential nomination, Humphrey upped his surreptitious support for McCarthy by having surrogates pay donate more to his campaign and cover the costs for his advertisements. While the full details were not clear to the public, what was clear was that McCarthy and the Humphrey-Lynch forces were tacitly cooperating in an informal Stop Kennedy operation, in what Kennedy’s team described in the media as the collapse of, “The moral basis of McCarthy’s candidacy… by an increasingly open and cynical coalition of McCarthy and Humphrey forces… especially deplorable coming from a candidate whose public posture has been ‘holier than thou.’” Despite this, McCarthy was greeted like a messiah in every college town; the honoured prophet who would no longer be denied. His preference towards local radio and television interviews over canvassing and glad-handing gave him nearly equal air time to Kennedy in the huge state, despite putting in much fewer hours and much less work, and his support from middle class suburbanites, independents, and cross-over Republicans continued to trend upward. Overall, Kennedy was receiving more coverage, but McCarthy was receiving more positive coverage.

    As Kennedy engaged in an eye-bulging, heart-pounding, furious mad dash to the finish line, McCarthy was moseying his way there, shrugging off mass defections by his middle management like they were nothing.

    Mere days away until the primary, and polls were inconclusive.

    Both candidates headed to San Francisco for the June 1st debate. Both candidates were staying at the Fairmont Hotel.

    Bobby prepared with the team that had prepped Jack Kennedy for his famous 1960 debate against Nixon, but he seemed distracted, frequently taking long pauses to look out the window. Cutting things short, he skipped a meeting with the local heads of the United Auto Workers that had been put together at great expense, in order to go shake hands down at Fisherman’s Wharf. Once back, rather than going over his notes again before the debate, he decided to take a nap instead.

    Meanwhile, McCarthy was in his hotel room with Finney. He had barely looked at the booklet his speechwriters had put together on the likely lines of attack that Kennedy would use against him, and was instead waiting for his friend Robert Lowell so that they could do a poetry reading. Before Lowell could arrive, Finney convinced McCarthy to check out of the Fairmont, and instead they would move to the Hilton at Union Square, where he could focus.

    Then, just as Tom Finney was about to step in the car with McCarthy, a synapse fired, a jolting thought occurred, a detail that could have been easily overlooked, was not overlooked: after the Fairmont, the Hilton was the second-most likely place to go. Some of the Fairmont staff – the concierge maybe – had probably heard them talking about it as they left the lobby. It would not take much snooping around for someone to figure out that McCarthy was at the Hilton.

    Well, let them think he was at the Hilton. They would go to the Stanyan Park Hotel instead [11].

    McCarthy and Kennedy Debate.jpg

    McCarthy and Kennedy sit down for their first and only debate.

    The debate was held at Station KGO-TV, on ABC News Issues and Answers, and moderated by Frank Reynolds, Robert Clark, and William H. Lawrence. McCarthy won the coin toss to determine who would go first. The first question was a simple one: “What would you do at this time that President Johnson is not doing to bring peace in Vietnam?” McCarthy responded with an allusion to the Gavin Plan that America should withdraw its troops to a position of strength, have South Vietnam form a new coalition government that would include the National Liberation Front, permanently halt bombing, and continue negotiations with the North. Leaning into his new populist messaging in his own academic way, he then digressed into French colonial history, before accusing Kennedy of, “playing a prominent role in formulating positions that resulted in disastrous adventures,” by, “taking up the cause of colonialism for the sake of political expediency [12].” Kennedy addressed the accusation, saying, “I was involved in many of the early decisions on Vietnam and I am willing to bear my share of the responsibility, but past error is no excuse for its own perpetuation.” Flipping the accusations back on McCarthy, he pointed out that he had not publicly come out against the war until 1966. He then said, unlike McCarthy, he would not force the South to accept communists into their government before the negotiations had even began, and instead proposed an anti-corruption and land reform push in the current government. He then went on to say that South Vietnamese troops should be stationed at the demilitarized zone instead of Americans, and that search and destroy missions should be ended. McCarthy shot back: “First of all, I did come out against the war in nineteen-hundred sixty-six, and voted to repeal the Tonkin Gulf Resolution – which gave the President the power to fight a war without congressional or constitutional approval – while you voted to allow him to continue to have that power in that same vote. Secondly, I didn’t say I was going to force a coalition government on South Vietnam. I said we should make it clear we are willing to accept that. Now, if the South Vietnamese want to continue to fight, and work out their negotiation that is well and good. But I don’t think there is much point in talking about reform in Saigon or land reform, because we have been asking for that for at least five years and it hasn’t happened [13].”

    After that tense exchange, Kennedy was then asked the next question about Johnson’s statement that he would leave all options for bombing North Vietnam on the table. Kennedy cited that Robert McNamara had testified before Congress that the bombings were not dramatically effecting the North’s will to fight, and that the South would have to pick up the slack, but he seemed rattled by McCarthy’s strong start: “If they don’t have that will, no matter how many men we send over there, how many bombs we drop – we’re dropping more now than we dropped in the Second World War – no matter how much we do of that, if they don’t have the will, and the desires themselves, no matter what we do, we-uh, can’t instill that in them. And that’s why I want to m-make it clear if I was President of the United States – and why I was critical back in 1965 because I thought we were making it America’s war, we were militarizing the conflict – that we – that this is a South Vietnamese war, I am opposed to unilaterally with-withdrawing from there, but they have to carry the major burden of this conflict. It can’t be carried by American soldiers [14].” Moving back over to McCarthy, he more or less reiterated the ineffectiveness of the bombing in a much more cogent way, but called into question McNamara’s credibility, considering he had been instrumental in the persecution of the Vietnam War, and ventured that Kennedy’s continued close relationship with McNamara was emblematic of the fact that Kennedy had yet to reject the preconceptions that had led to the Vietnam War, unlike him; his long experience on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had allowed him to see the faults in American policy firsthand, and how to address, making him the candidate best qualified to guarantee, “no more Vietnams.” Kennedy shot back at McCarthy’s increasingly close cooperation with Humphrey, but McCarthy deflected it by pointing he had been the only candidate to have the courage to run against Johnson when no one else would, and, as for Humphrey, “I do not desire to control the actions of other candidates, and I cannot control whether they choose to enter the primaries at an opportunistic moment for them or not [15].”

    McCarthy then had to justify an attack ad in the papers released by his campaign, saying that Kennedy had to be held responsible in his role in the Vietnam War and the intervention into the Dominican Republic. McCarthy was caught off guard for the first time, with Kennedy accurately pointing out that he was not even part of the Johnson Administration when it invaded the Dominican Republic. Backpedaling, McCarthy weakly brushed it off by saying that Kennedy was responsible for the “process.” Both candidates then had to address the charge that running an anti-war campaign encouraged the North to delay negotiations in hopes of getting a better deal if either of them were elected. Both candidates answered adequately: McCarthy argued that dissent was essential in a democratic society, and Kennedy argued that the reforms he proposed were necessary for South Vietnam to win the war. Both candidates reaffirmed that they would maintain America’s responsibilities to its allies and elaborated on the point. In particular, Kennedy voiced his support for sending fifty jets in military aide to Israel following the Six Days War of the previous year.

    With McCarthy having clearly come off as the better of the two on Vietnam, Kennedy was visibly relieved when the topic shifted to domestic affairs. On the matter of law and order, he started shakily, but seemed to regain confidence as he went through his point-by-point plan: he would increase funds for police departments to deal with riots, but emphasized his relationship with the black and Mexican American communities; he declared that the best way to deal with these problems would be to make in clear that riots and disorder were unacceptable, but that people without hope who rioted out of despair would be provided with jobs and economic opportunity, proposing the government become the employer of last resort. McCarthy seemed less comfortable in domestic policy, and stumbled to his point that the country needed a massive new housing initiative to build a million houses a year in high-employment, new suburban areas across the country, in order to clear out the ghettos, and provide adequate housing and work to all Americans. Kennedy chimed in by talking about the loss of hope in the black community, emphasizing the success of his Bedford Stuyvesant program, and chastised the Johnson Administration for not abiding by the suggestions of the Kerner Commission to address to the root problems of urban rioting. McCarthy agreed that Johnson was not doing enough, and posited that the war was using up all the budget money that could otherwise be used to implement his policies and the recommendations of the Kerner Commission.

    After a back in worth where the two candidates largely agreed on the dangers of budget cuts to social programs, McCarthy singled out the slashing cuts to the housing budget that Johnson had enacted. Kennedy then interjected to voice his disagreement with McCarthy’s housing program; Kennedy reiterated his position that improving the conditions in the ghettos through private investment was a better solution than replacing them, with McCarthy countering, “I would say we’ve got to get into the suburbs with this kind of housing. Some of the jobs are in the city and some jobs are being built there, but most of the employment is in the – in the beltline outside of the cities, and I don’t think we ought to perpetuate the ghetto if we can help it, even by putting better houses there for them, or low-cost houses… otherwise we’re adopting a kind of apartheid in this country, a practical apartheid… and it means funding, I think, five or six billion dollars a year, eventually, in the same that we funded, roughly four to five billion dollars a year for the interstate highway program… clearly funded, so as to carry over a period of five to ten years until the housing needs of this country are, in fact, met [16].”

    Kennedy was waiting for a comment like that and jumped in hard: “Can I make just a comment on that? I’m all in favor of moving people out of the ghettos, but we have fourteen million Negros who are in the ghettos at the present time, we have here in the state of California a million Mexican Americans whose poverty is even greater than many of the black people… the children who go to these schools, only three out of ten graduate from high school, and the ones who graduate from high school have the equivalent of an eight grade education. So to take them out, where forty percent of them don’t have any jobs at all… to take those people out, put them in the suburbs, where they can’t afford the housing, where the children can’t keep up with schools, and where they don’t have the skills for the jobs, it’s just going to be catastrophic [17].”

    Kennedy had hit back, but McCarthy had been prepared for some sort of attack like that, and struck back just as fiercely: “There you go again. I did not say that we would move ten thousand Negros to Orange County. We need to instead allow the Negro community to have a sense of their own personal freedoms with their own opportunities in dignified communities, rather than leaving them an economic colony, dependent on the government. Many of the beltline jobs do not need specialized training, and what a housing program like what I’m calling for would address would be your very concerns of affordability. Gilding the ghettos cannot possibly provide for all the unemployed there. What you’re representing is part of the problem, Bobby [18].”

    Briefly losing his patience, political pundits watching from across the country collectively cringed as Kennedy whined in his most nasally, New England twang, “I’m naaawt part of the problem!”

    Attempting to quickly recomposing himself, Kennedy then had to answer to recent allegations that he had approved the wiretapping of Martin Luther King while he had been attorney general. Refusing to discuss it further, Kennedy stated that discussing individual cases would be illegal [19]. Kennedy then tried to avoid the topic of cabinet appointments. McCarthy went after Dean Rusk and Robert McNamara for their incompetent handling of the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Vietnam War. Trying to take the high ground, Kennedy remarked, “I think with all the problems that are affecting the United States, with the internal problems that we have and the problems around the rest of the world, to talk about it in terms of personality… I don’t want to be playing games with people’s reputations [20].” However, McCarthy retorted that one of the great problems of American politics had become the personalization of government positions, “up to and including the presidency,” and that, “cabinet members should not be immune to just criticism, nor left to turn our institutions meant to serve the people into their own fiefdoms.” Kennedy had unintentionally cornered himself into the position of defending the Johnson cabinet [21].

    As the debate concluded, Kennedy landed with a thud; he had been unaware that they would have to make closing remarks, and quickly ad-libbed a closing statement discussing his political experience, while McCarthy repeated his prepared statement that his New Politics and its New Constituents were needed in order to revitalize America’s institutions and political process before discussing his own political career, which, while more distant from the flashpoints of world history, was nonetheless more extensive than Kennedy’s. McCarthy concluded, “And I think there’s something to be said for a president or a presidential candidate who can somehow anticipate what the country wants, especially when what they want is on the side of good and justice, and to provide not real leadership in the sense of ‘you’ve got to follow me,’ but who needs to be prepared to move out ahead somewhat, so that the people of the country can follow. And thirdly I think I sensed what the young people of this country needed – these young students were dropping out and saying ‘the Establishment is no good’ – we’ve had a genuine reconciliation of old and young in this country, and the significance of that is, I think, that through the whole country now there’s a new confidence in the future of America. It’s a projection of this country in trust, which has always been the character of this country, and it’s in that mood and that spirit that I would act as President of the United States [22].”

    McCarthy and Joey BIshop.jpg

    Talking Heads: The media generally agreed that McCarthy won the debate with Kennedy. McCarthy is seen here on the Joey Bishop Show.
    In the aftermath of the debate, it was clear that McCarthy had won it. The title of the conservative Santa Monica Evening Outlook’s editorial was emblematic of the public perception: “McCarthy shines as Kennedy whines,” with ‘I’m naaawt part of the problem’ becoming the political joke of the week. McCarthy’s statement of ‘no new Vietnams’ became the simplest soundbite for the media to use in an otherwise policy-heavy and complex debate. In a San Francisco phone-in poll, voters gave the debate to McCarthy by a one and a half-to-one margin; in a statewide poll, fifty-five percent thought McCarthy had won the debate, while according to Kennedy’s internal polling numbers, McCarthy’s suburban base was swelling in size from Lynch-Humphrey voters who were switching over to the candidate more likely to beat him [23].

    Fighting to make up lost ground, Kennedy intensified his already superhuman work hours, sending off his family on a trip to Disneyland without him as he barnstormed southern California, starting with Orange County and working his way up through the Central Valley. The day before the primary, he traveled twelve hundred miles, from Los Angeles to San Francisco, Long Beach, Watts, San Diego, then back again to Los Angeles, literally collapsing from exhaustion more than once. Meanwhile, McCarthy attended a writer’s forum with Robert Lowell and a few light radio interviews in commuter-heavy areas during rush hour. In reaction to McCarthy’s strong debate performance, Humphrey had Lynch take down as much as his advertising as possible, so as to not split the anti-Kennedy vote, with the exception of anti-Kennedy attack ads released so close to polling that it was illegal to do so.

    Polls closed at 8:00PM. Results reported before the polls closed were inconclusive. As the first results came in from the cities, Kennedy took an early lead. The numbers were big enough that he could win. But, as results came in from the suburban counties, especially from the Central Valley, it was becoming more and more clear that despite gargantuan, record-breaking numbers in black and Latino areas, the feared white backlash was pushing McCarthy forward, with Lynch dramatically underperforming. There was a dead silence from the Kennedy headquarters, while, when asked by the press, McCarthy remarked that the results were looking “pretty good.”

    As midnight approached, it became clear that McCarthy had the numbers in the north and Central Valley to make him the winner, possibly even with a majority of the vote. Kennedy’s only concession was that he was projected to win by a landslide in the South Dakota primary being held at the same time, with McCarthy in a dismal third behind the pro-Humphrey unpledged delegate slate. Kennedy, at his headquarters in the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, abandoned a half-written congratulatory telegram to McCarthy, and instead went down to his waiting audience. Opening with some levity, he thanked his dog, Freckles, followed by his family and all his supporters, before announcing that he would be withdrawing his candidacy, as promised, but doing so in such a way as to imply that he would be available to be drafted at the convention. Kennedy then prepared for a second reception before going to a press conference, but plans were changed by his aide, Fred Dutton. Seeing that Kennedy was exhausted, and wanting to control the media narrative as much as possible, Dutton decided that they would go to the press conference first. The fastest way to get there would be back through how they entered; the back kitchen and pantry. Separated by his bodyguard in the crowd, Kennedy made his way through the kitchen, shaking hands, and led by maitre d’ Karl Uecker. Uecker, on edge from the emotional tension of Kennedy’s defeat, noticed a man charging up with a gun. Two shots were fired before Uecker, in a knee-jerk reaction, slapped the gun aside. Several more shots went wild before the shooter was restrained. Kennedy was obviously wounded, and barely retained consciousness until he was brought into an ambulance.

    McCarthy was in his suite at the Beverly Hilton Hotel when he heard the news. He grew pale. He lashed out at his long-time rival, bitterly remarking, “He brought it on himself, demagoguing to the last.”

    And then, Eugene McCarthy wept.

    McCarthy Visiting RFK in Hospital.jpg

    McCarthy on his way to visit Bobby Kennedy at the hospital.
    Out of concern that the shooting might be part of a wider plot, McCarthy told his celebrating staff what had happened, and asked them to vacate their Los Angeles headquarters at the Westwood, an old Sears Roebuck building. While it was not yet known to the public, the shooter was Sirhan Sirhan, a young Palestinian who had gone after Kennedy for his pro-Israel policies, including his support of sending jet fighters to Israel as military aide.

    Meanwhile, Kennedy was received at Central Receiving Hospital where he was stabilized. He had been shot three times: one bullet had passed through his torso, causing internal bleeding, the second had lodged in his spine, while a third had grazed his neck. A fourth bullet had passed through his coat without hitting him [24]. He was transferred, half-conscience and on painkillers, to the Hospital of the Good Samaritan, where a team of surgeons were preparing to operate. A priest was brought in, and last rites were administered. Before the procedure began, Kennedy spoke to his press secretary, Frank Mankiewicz, telling him that he wanted to endorse McCarthy. Mankiewicz was shocked; his distaste for McCarthy was equal to, if not greater, than Kennedy’s, but Bobby was firm. “It’s not about a man, it’s about the movement,” he mumbled [25].

    By the time McCarthy arrived at the hospital, Mankiewicz had already informed the press that Kennedy was entering surgery with uncertain prospects, and that before being put on anesthesia that he had endorsed Gene McCarthy. Mankiewicz later wisecracked that, “It’s too bad Gene didn’t meet Bobby before they put him in surgery. He probably would’ve changed his mind.”

    In the long shadow of California, McCarthy had become the sole peace candidate in more ways than one. He had gotten just under a majority of the vote at forty-nine percent, next to a little under forty-three percent for Kennedy, and a little under seven percent for Lynch. Not only that, but he came away from California with a sense of moral absolution after the bitter primary battles of the past, having received Kennedy’s endorsement. And, while the news had been lost in the shuffle, he had also won a solid victory in the New Jersey primary. As he headed for the Democratic convention, Eugene McCarthy was feeling good about his chances.

    Every other politician in America prepared for the inevitable nomination of Hubert Humphrey.



    [1] Unlike Florida and West Virginia, Louisiana did not have a presidential candidate preference primary. They did have a delegate slate primary, which is what McCarthy was referring to. The Louisiana delegate primary would ultimately be won by those loyal to Governor John McKeithen, a Johnson/Humphrey surrogate.

    [2] This is slightly out of chronological order in relation to the end of chapter two: this episode in the Kennedy-McCarthy relationship happened after the New Hampshire primary, after Bobby Kennedy unofficially announced his intention to run, but before Kennedy officially announced he was running. Jerry Eller never forgave Clark for his part in the plan, and frequently blocked his access to McCarthy – even more so than he was already doing – for the rest of the primaries.

    [3] Despite being the left-most figure in mainstream American politics at the time, the New Left, and particularly the SDS, had a special disdain for McCarthy. They considered his calls to bring people back into the political process to be anathema to their ideology of direct political action and revolutionary incitement. Ironically, the more centrist Kennedy had greater respect in New Left circles for being a more professional and realistic anti-war candidate. As recalled by former SDS President Carl Oglesby, “McCarthy wouldn't have had anything to do with real power. That was pure symbolism. It was empty. McCarthy was not going to be the president of this country. Period. No way. No how. But Bobby Kennedy? Ah, ha, a very real chance to be the president of the United States. Very real, very practical.” The opposite was true of the Yippies; they preferred McCarthy because they thought he was going to lose (Abbie Hoffman once said that rooting for McCarthy is like rooting for the New York Mets: you know they’re going to lose but you do it anyway), while they thought Kennedy would ruin their fun, since he was the only candidate who could match them in “theatre in the streets,” with what Hoffman described as his “participation mystique.”

    [4] Following the McCarthy campaign IOTL, Larner would go on to write the script for the political satire The Candidate, starring Robert Redford. The Candidate was in large part inspired by the McCarthy campaign, along with the 1970 Senate campaign of John V. Tunney, which the director, Michael Ritchie, participated in.

    [5] McCarthy’s campaign had more women in leadership positions on the state and local level than any other campaign of the year, or perhaps even ever up to that point in American politics. The disorganized, decentralized structure allowed political amateurs and hobbyists to attain important local roles with little to no prior political experience. This allowed many women who were generally kept out of the political process to get involved, while they were stonewalled in more ‘professional’ campaigns such as Kennedy’s.

    [6] Why did Lyndon Johnson drop out? There are a few different interpretations, but the one most agreed on was that he was in poor health, and did not know if he could survive a second term. It is also believed that his close friend John Connally's decision to not run for another term as Governor of Texas influenced his decision. Of course, there is also the obvious take that McCarthy’s strong showing in New Hampshire scared him away, along with Kennedy's entry into the race. That was the general belief of the public at the time, except for the cynics who believed he was dropping out in order to bypass the primaries and organize a draft at the convention. More on that next chapter.

    [7] While legal at the time, Humphrey’s funding of McCarthy’s campaign was incredibly sneaky and had horrible optics, so it was kept a secret from the public. The money was most likely delivered to McCarthy, alone and in person, by Miles Lord, a district judge from Minnesota and a known Humphrey supporter who was observed occasionally visiting McCarthy every few primary elections.

    [8] The only person in McCarthy's entire campaign structure who seemed able to make any sort of connection with black voters was the actor Paul Newman. When Newman met with local black community leaders Charles Hendricks and Ben Bell, Hendricks commented, "I tell you what, you sell him better than he sells himself. You've done more for McCarthy in these few minutes than he did for himself [in the entire campaign up to that point]."

    [9] McCarthy’s address at the Cow Palace was considered one of his best by his speechwriters, but he had to be convinced to criticize Humphrey in it. Indeed, McCarthy’s campaign nearly collapsed when he said that he would consider endorsing Humphrey if he changed his position on the war, and he had to quickly claim he was misquoted. McCarthy still had a latent fondness for Humphrey, and would later admit that if it came down to Humphrey or Kennedy at the convention that he would have backed Humphrey, despite him being publicly opposed to nearly all of his major policies in 1968. Bobby Kennedy had independently arrived at the same conclusion, and intended to support Humphrey over McCarthy if he could not be the nominee, such was their mutual loathing by the time of the Oregon primary.

    [10] Indeed, Kennedy had such strong Latino support that César Chávez, the leader of the largely Latino United Farm Workers (UFW), temporarily suspended their strike so that they could focus their attention on campaigning for him. McCarthy supporters in the Latino community were ostracized. According to Chávez, when he saw twenty Latinos marching with McCarthy signs in East Los Angeles, “There must have been about a thousand people ready to skin them… you don’t do that in East L.A. or any place where there’s blacks and browns.”

    [11] This is our Point of Divergence. Historically, Finney did not cover his tracks, and Lowell and a group of mutual friends found McCarthy at the Hilton, where he ended up doing barely any debate prep. Instead, he spent most of his day singing Irish folk songs. ITTL, McCarthy and Finney go through the entire debate prep undisturbed, while Lowell and company waited around Union Square looking for McCarthy.

    [12] IOTL, McCarthy did not go on the attack in his opening statement. His accusation of Kennedy, “playing a prominent role in formulating positions that resulted in disastrous adventures” is from one of his speeches during the Oregon primary.

    [13] Their respective voting records did not come up in the Vietnam section of the debate IOTL, but the rest of what McCarthy said, following “Secondly…” is verbatim.

    [14] Verbatim.

    [15] IOTL, McCarthy ended this back-and-forth with his criticism of McNamara, without tying it to Kennedy or his experience in the Senate.

    [16] Verbatim.

    [17] Verbatim.

    [18] IOTL, McCarthy did not rebut Kennedy’s assertion that he was going to move ten thousand black people into Orange County, one of the most white and conservative counties in California. His reply here is based off of what McCarthy’s speechwriter, Jeremy Larner, had prepared for him as a reply to such an assertion by Kennedy in the debate prep that McCarthy did not do.

    [19] Kennedy did indeed approve the wiretapping of Martin Luther King. In an attempt to hurt Kennedy in the California primary, J. Edgar Hoover leaked this information to the press shortly before the debate.

    [20] Verbatim.

    [21] IOTL, McCarthy was unable to come out with an adequate response to Kennedy’s response about playing with people’s reputations. Instead he came off as petulant when he started talking about how the Johnson Administration had been rude to the Foreign Relations Committee, and that he thought that Jack Kennedy had been “too kind to a number of people after the Bay of Pigs…”

    [22] Verbatim.

    [23] IOTL, the media believed the debate was a tie, the San Francisco phone-in poll gave it to Kennedy by two and a half-to one, and the statewide poll gave forty-five percent to Kennedy, while in the internal polling, white middle class suburban voters shifted dramatically from McCarthy to Kennedy.

    [24] IOTL, the third bullet lodged in his brain, and was the one most responsible for killing Kennedy. ITTL, Uecker’s quick reaction had the shot go wild.

    [25] Kennedy, in his right mind, never would have endorsed McCarthy. He would be more likely to do so while hopped up on painkillers and having a religious revelation at death’s door. If Kennedy had left the California primary defeated but unharmed, he would have, in all likelihood, tried to deadlock the convention to get himself chosen as a compromise candidate, and, failing that, throw it to Humphrey.
     
    Last edited:
    The 1968 Democratic Primaries Results Breakdown
  • The 1968 Democratic Primaries Results Breakdown

    New Hampshire
    1968 New Hampshire Democratic Primary Cropped.png

    Lyndon Johnson - 27,520 (49.6%)
    Eugene McCarthy - 23,263 (41.9%)

    What began as President Lyndon Johnson's mosey to renomination instantly derailed with the New Hampshire primary. McCarthy famously exceeded all expectations by winning forty-two percent of the vote next to Johnson's fifty percent. Including write-ins by Republican primary voters, McCarthy came within less than one percent of beating Johnson. Relying almost entirely on his local organization, McCarthy emphasized the cost of the war to appeal to the fiscally conservative voters of New Hampshire, and gained significant support from the anti-Johnson vote, most of whom actually wanted a more aggressive stance on the Vietnam War. McCarthy performed best in the suburban areas, with his best results being in Grafton County (54.67% or 1639 votes). McCarthy came within less than half a percent of also winning Cheshire County. His worst result in New Hampshire's urban centre, Hillsborough County (34.1% or 7684 votes). Johnson got most of his votes from Manchester, the largest city in New Hampshire, and located in Hillsborough County.

    McCarthy also placed third in the Republican primary, entirely through write-ins, getting five percent of the vote, next to Nelson Rockefeller's ten percent and Richard Nixon's seventy-eight percent.

    Wisconsin
    1968 Wisconsin Democratic Primary cropped.png

    Eugene McCarthy - 412,160 (56.2%)
    Lyndon Johnson - 253,696 (34.6%)

    Held shortly after Johnson announced that he would not be seeking a second term, McCarthy trounced the President in the Wisconsin primary, winning all but Milwaukee County. The results were actually on the lower end of the expected results; if Johnson had stayed in the race, McCarthy was expected to get as high as sixty-six percent of the vote. While a blowout victory, Wisconsin still showed that McCarthy performed the worst in large cities, where his weakest demographics, black and unionized voters, lived in the largest numbers. McCarthy remained strongest in suburban counties, such as Kewaunee County, where he got over seventy percent of the vote. McCarthy's weakest showing was in the incredibly sparsely populated Menominee County, getting seventy-five votes total in the county, which equated to thirty-eight percent, rounded up. His low margin was due to Bobby Kennedy receiving fifty-six votes, which equated to twenty-eight percent in the county. McCarthy received an outright majority in nearly every county he won, with the exception being a handful of low-population rural counties where even a mild concentration of Kennedy write-ins could greatly affect the percentages, just like in Menominee County.

    While Vice President Hubert Humphrey announced his candidacy after the Wisconsin primary but before the next primary in Indiana, he decided to not compete in any of the primary states. In Indiana, Ohio, Florida, and California, favourite son candidates acted as stand-ins for him.

    Indiana
    1968 Indiana Democratic Primary cropped.png

    Robert Kennedy - 328,118 (42.3%)
    Roger Branigin - 238,700 (30.7%)
    Eugene McCarthy - 209,695 (27.0%)

    In the first primary where McCarthy was running against active candidates, he placed a dismal third. McCarthy's Indiana plan had been called the 'Rural Strategy' by his campaign. The plan was that McCarthy would focus on racking up his margins in rural counties, leaving Kennedy and Indiana's governor and favourite son, Roger Branigin, to compete in the major cities. This strategy backfired, as a bitter internal rivalry between McCarthy's national campaign and Indiana campaign left the candidate's schedule completely unplanned. Many times, McCarthy could only put together a crowd of a few hundred, or even a few dozen people, as his appearance had not been advertised to wherever he went on any given day. McCarthy barely won in Adams and Wells counties, nearly losing to Kennedy. His best result was in Monroe County, where the college town of Bloomington was located. Many of the subrurban voters around Indianapolis who might otherwise have voted for him instead went to Branigin. There is some disagreement on who would have won if Branigin had not been a candidate. Exit polling indicated that in a race between just Kennedy and McCarthy, Kennedy would have won with around sixty percent. Veterans of the McCarthy campaign in Indiana have argued that that number is not accurate, as they would have used a different strategy focused on suburban voters if Branigin had not been a candidate.

    Oregon
    1968 Oregon Democratic Primary cropped.png

    Eugene McCarthy - 163,990 (44.0%)
    Robert Kennedy - 141,631 (38.0%)

    Following another defeat to Kennedy in the Nebraska primary, McCarthy restructured his campaign for the West Coast. Under the command of his new campaign coordinator, Tom Finney, McCarthy began adopting populist rhetoric, and finally decided on a theme for his campaign, titled New Politics. Demographically speaking, Oregon was ideal for McCarthy, being one of the most suburban states in America and with one of the lowest black populations. This was something frequently lamented by Kennedy and his team during their time in the state. Appropriately enough, McCarthy did exceptionally well in the college town of Eugene, in Lane County. For the first time in the year's primaries, McCarthy won the most populous city in a state. In this case, Portland.

    The 1968 Oregon Democratic primary was the first election ever lost by a Kennedy. Lyndon Johnson remained on the ballot in Oregon, and placed third with twelve percent of the vote.

    California
    1968 California Democratic Primary cropped.png

    Eugene McCarthy - 1,624,316 (48.6%)
    Robert Kennedy - 1,428,903 (42.8%)
    Thomas Lynch - 227,177 (6.8%)

    California was the culmination of the Democratic primaries; it was considered the most important by both the McCarthy and Kennedy campaigns, and Kennedy had pledged to drop out of the race if he lost there. Despite entering the state with a lead in the polls, Kennedy also agreed to a debate with McCarthy, something he had been actively avoiding up until that point. In California, McCarthy turned to his preferred campaigning medium of television to do most of the work for him, while Kennedy prioritized in-person campaign rallies. Kennedy rested his hopes on racial and ethnic minority voters to carry him forward, particularly with blacks and Latinos. However, Kennedy's affinity for black and Latino voters caused a white backlash against his candidacy to begin to stir. Polling remained inconclusive with less than a week until voting day, but the debate proved decisive. McCarthy's clear victory over Kennedy in the debate triggered the feared white backlash. Turnout was somewhat higher than expected in McCarthy's favour. Likewise, many voters would otherwise have voted for Humphrey's surrogate, California Attorney General Thomas Lynch, instead voted for McCarthy. The impact of the anti-Kennedy surge was most strongly felt in the Central Valley region, where closer-than-expected margins in counties Kennedy won, and a few upset wins for McCarthy in counties expected to go to Kennedy, such as Fresno, signified the broader McCarthy victory elsewhere in the state.

    California
    1968 California Democratic Primary Actual cropped.png

    Robert Kennedy - 1,472,166 (46.3%)
    Eugene McCarthy - 1,329,301 (41.8%)
    Thomas Lynch - 380,286 (12.0%)
     
    Last edited:
    Chapter Four - Don't Stop the Carnival
  • Chapter Four - Don't Stop the Carnival

    Following Eugene McCarthy’s victory in the California primary, the assassination attempt that incapacitated Bobby Kennedy, and his ensuing endorsement of McCarthy, the last primary, held in Illinois, felt like an anti-climax. With voting held on June 11th, McCarthy trounced Hubert Humphrey with nearly sixty percent of the vote. This was in spite of the fact that he had not canvassed the state once, with his and Humphrey’s campaigns postponed out of respect for Bobby Kennedy’s tenuous condition: the surgeons were able to stop most of the internal bleeding, but he was under constant watch, and it was unclear if he would ever be able to walk again [1]. Despite McCarthy’s commanding margin of victory in the primary, the Illinois delegation remained in the iron grip of Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago, who would be hosting the Democratic National Convention in the coming months.

    McCarthy, with his new detail of secret service bodyguards in tow [2], reopened his campaign on June 12th. His address was held in the Senate Caucus Room, where both he and Kennedy had announced their candidacies. He began by recounting the events that had happened throughout the campaign: Johnson dropping out, the opening of negotiations with North Vietnam, the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and the ensuing riots, and the attempted assassination of Bobby Kennedy. McCarthy expressed that the crisis of American society had grown even deeper and more intense, and that, “We call for change in America because without change we fear for our nation’s future.” McCarthy claimed that the peace negotiations in Paris were making no progress because the Johnson Administration was afraid of change, and overly dismissive of the concerns of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He then pivoted to a moral-philosophical analysis of urban despair, lecturing that, “Discontent in America grows as much from a sense of powerlessness as from as from poverty. It is a discontent with the present state of our democracy [3].” McCarthy’s speech was well received by the assembled journalists, but his usual glib style of answering questions soured the mood somewhat. When asked if he would be willing to debate Humphrey, McCarthy replied, “If at some point he feels the positions I am taking ought to be challenged, why, we will then have to decide how best to present the difference, or to receive his challenge, to the public for their judgement.” When asked to present his argument for why delegates should vote for him rather than Humphrey at the convention, he said, “I don’t think I will make that argument to them. I simply ask them to be responsible delegates and to make the judgement that has to be made in August, which is a question of what issues the Democratic Party is going to support at that time; and then to ask the question as to which candidate is likely best to carry those issues to the country. I just ask them for a reserved judgement [4].”

    And with that, the McCarthy campaign resumed.

    McCarthy at Rally.jpg

    McCarthy at a rally in the latter days of his primary campaign.
    With the primaries over, McCarthy entered Humphrey’s domain of party bosses, backroom backslapping, entrenched political machinery, and prior commitments. In other words, it was everything McCarthy hated about politics and everything he refused to participate in, considering it degrading and demagogic showmanship.

    While McCarthy and Kennedy had been competing in the primaries, Humphrey had been quietly gathering support in the non-primary states, which controlled the majority of the delegates who would be going to the convention, and who would decide the Democratic nominee. Humphrey had been too late to enter most of the primaries, and had chosen to work the delegate system instead; Kennedy had entered in the primaries in the belief that by winning in every one he competed in, he would be able to present himself to the delegates as the most likely to win in the general election; McCarthy had entered the primaries as the only way to challenge President Johnson, and, refusing to concede anything to a Kennedy, continued on after Bobby had entered. Left unopposed in the non-primary delegate hunt, Humphrey had obtained the firm support of the Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Maryland, Delaware, Montana, and Utah delegations, as well as the tacit support of nearly every other state in the union. However, outside these core states, loyalty to Humphrey was a varied and fragile thing. In New England and the west, McCarthy had some of his greatest support, and his volunteers threatened to take control of the delegate slates. In the South, McCarthy had some of his most enthusiastic supporters, but they had failed to penetrate the political machinery. Despite this, the Southern party bosses were particularly sceptical of Humphrey, and expected to be appeased if they were to support him.

    McCarthy’s next challenge represented a transition from the primary states to the non-primary states, in the form of New York’s delegate primaries.

    New York did not have a presidential preference primary, but a primary had been introduced to allow voters to directly elect many of the delegates who would go to the convention. One hundred and twenty-three delegates were chosen in the primaries by the voters. The primaries were divided by House district, with the voters in each House district having to choose among various candidates to fill three delegate spots, as well as three alternate delegate spots. There was no indication on the ballots which delegate candidate supported which presidential candidate, with it being left up to the campaigns to try and communicate to the voters which delegates candidate supported their preferred presidential candidate. However, there was no rule stopping a delegate identified with one candidate to ultimately vote for another candidate at the convention. Because of this complicated system, each presidential campaign had to effectively run an separate delegate campaign in each of New York’s forty-one House districts. On top of all that, a further sixty-five ‘at-large’ delegates were appointed directly by the state party’s committee, and an extra two delegate spots were reserved for the chairman and chairwoman. The state committee could appoint the at-large delegates to whichever candidate they wanted, and had no legal obligation to appoint them in proportion to the popular vote. In New York, the party chairman was John J. Burns, a Kennedy loyalist who was more interested in appeasing the rest of the committee than guaranteeing a proportionate division of at-large delegates.

    Cutting through the byzantine labyrinth of New York politics was the Coalition for a Democratic Alternative (CDA). Along with Allard Lowenstein’s Conference of Concerned Democrats (CCD), the New York-based CDA had been one of the most prominent Dump Johnson groups in America. Headed by Sarah Kovner, Harold M. Ickes [5], and Eleanor French, the CDA had pledged to give total access to their organization (and, more importantly, their organization’s sizable budget) to whoever decided to run against Johnson, and had federated into the McCarthy campaign once he had declared his candidacy in the autumn of 1967. But, their enthusiasm quickly turned to bemusement, when no one in the national headquarters bothered to contact them. Left to their own devices, the CDA insulated their resources from the national effort, and began acting as an autonomous, Mid-Atlantic arm of the McCarthy campaign. Fearing that time, money, and volunteers would be squandered by the anarchic national headquarters, the CDA had sent aide to the primary states without any consultation from the national headquarters, while at the same time preparing for their own state’s delegate primaries. By the time McCarthy arrived in New York to campaign, the CDA had already recruited and registered one hundred and twenty-three pro-McCarthy delegate candidates, as well as s slate of potential at-large candidates. Working with other McCarthy supporters in the state , the CDA had prepared high-profile primary challenges for the Democratic Senate nomination, and for the New York’s fifth congressional district. In the former, Paul O’Dwyer, the New York City Councilman representing Manhattan, would be running against Nassau County Executive Eugene Nickerson (a Kennedy supporter and the choice of the state party bosses), and Representative Joseph Resnick (an ostensible Humphrey supporter who was advocating for the renomination of President Johnson). In the latter, Allard Lowenstein himself would be running against Albert Vorspan, a more moderate anti-war candidate supported by the state party bosses.

    McCarthy began his campaigning in New York as one would expect: with an address to the Community Council of Greater New York where he discussed the history of poverty in Ancient Greece and Rome, and a description of welfare as it was practiced by medieval monasteries. Kovner, Ickes, and French had not even spoken to McCarthy up to that point, but Tom Finney, vindicated as the new campaign coordinator after the primary victories in Oregon and California, encouraged him into making appearances with his delegate candidates. Despite Finney’s insistence, McCarthy continued to run a lax schedule, only appearing with delegate candidates in a handful of swing districts [6]. Meanwhile, his ever-growing entourage of journalists, authors, academics, and poets had mutated into a horde of sycophantic flatterers, who restricted the campaign team’s access to the candidate and gave incredibly overly-optimistic advice, with McCarthy engaging in a series of blunders: he remarked that most Americans were ready to embrace unilateral withdrawal from Vietnam (but hastened to add that he did not support it), and breached diplomatic decorum by mulling over the idea of going to visit the peace negotiations while they were still in progress. When asked about his stance on gun control in the wake of Kennedy’s shooting, McCarthy opined that, “It’s something that I think ought to be thoroughly and calmly discussed in the Senate [7].” He also remained aloof to black voters, only visiting the Pittsburgh ghetto, and allowing his bodyguards to veto events planned in the ghettos of Newark, Detroit, and Los Angeles, among others. Despite this, polling indicated that McCarthy’s support among black voters was skyrocketing following Kennedy’s incapacitation and endorsement, but his core demographic remained white, middle class suburbanites [8].

    Despite these gaffes, when the votes were counted on June 18th, it was clear that McCarthy – or at least the CDA – had walloped the competition. Out of the one hundred and twenty-three spots, over seventy McCarthy delegates had been elected, with Kennedy delegates coming in second in the high twenties. Uncommitted delegates placed in the high teens, while Humphrey barely got over ten. In an upset, O’Dwyer narrowly won the Senate nomination despite many expecting him to come in third, while Lowenstein handily won his primary in the fifth district. Despite these accomplishments, it was a bittersweet victory. Out of the sixty-five at-large delegates, McCarthy was granted only fifteen and a half of them, and of those, only seven were confirmed to be McCarthy supporters who could be expected to vote for him at the convention. The rest were officially uncommitted, but were made up entirely of known Humphrey supporters. Expecting sixty percent of the at-large delegates to proportionately reflect the results of the primaries but willing to compromise at forty percent, the CDA had instead only been given ten percent as reliable votes. The committee’s ruling resulted in a walkout by McCarthy supporters, and a disastrous split in the state party which lasted for the rest of the year [9].

    After the New York primaries, McCarthy began to see old victories slip out of his grasp as well. While the New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Oregon, and California delegations were legally bound to him, he suffered greatly in the states where no such laws were in place; in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Illinois, the party bosses, who had retained control of their delegations, completely ignored their states’ primaries, and appointed overwhelmingly pro-Humphrey slates. McCarthy was further pummeled by the fact that, of Kennedy’s three-hundred and one delegates, only about a third had officially switched allegiances to McCarthy. The majority had declared that they were supporting Humphrey, while a minority group declared itself uncommitted, in the hopes that Ted Kennedy could be drafted if the convention were to become deadlocked [10].

    Meanwhile, in many of the non-primary states, party regulars manipulated the rules of their convoluted systems to try and minimize the influence of McCarthy’s – often more numerous, but always less political experienced – grassroots supporters. In the non-primary states, delegates were determined at the state convention by the state delegates. The state delegates were in turn chosen through county caucuses, district conventions, and committee meetings. Tactics that a McCarthy supporter could be expected to face included, but were not limited to: district and caucus chairmen (almost always pro-Humphrey) illegally leaving the voting rolls open for several days past voting, without telling the McCarthy supporters, in order to search for more Humphrey voters to add to the roster, then being absolved by the pro-Humphrey state committee for doing so; stacking the county credentials committees with pro-Humphrey supporters, then scouring the county records for pedantic reasons to disqualify McCarthy voters; seating McCarthy supporters at the back of meeting halls and refusing to supply microphones, so that the pro-Humphrey chair could have plausible deniability to ignore their requests for recognition, and weakening their strength in voice votes; confiscation of pro-McCarthy campaign materials in meeting halls while not equally enforcing confiscation against Humphrey material; and, most commonly amending the delegate selection rules to weight counties differently to give preference to small rural counties likely to vote for Humphrey, using the weighted advantage to achieve a majority at the state convention, the use the pro-Humphrey artificial majority to appoint nearly one hundred percent of the at-large delegate positions to fellow pro-Humphrey delegate candidates, then appoint a negligible number of McCarthy supporters as token representation (usually between two to six out of several dozen), who could then be forced to vote for Humphrey anyway through the pro-Humphrey majority invoking the unit rule [11].

    It was clear that if McCarthy was to win the nomination, he would have to rely on more than the party bosses' sense of fairness.

    McCarthy and Paul O'Dwyer.jpg

    McCarthy with Paul O'Dwyer, one of his political protégés and the 1968 Democratic nominee for the Senate in New York.

    Following the New York delegate primaries, McCarthy prepared to spend the rest of June crossing the nation to attend various Democratic state conventions. Two different strategies were presented to him by his advisors. Stephen A. Mitchell, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee under Adlai Stevenson, proposed a massive grassroots effort to be controlled by Curtis Gans. Gans would direct McCarthy’s supporters in targeted mass demonstrations, to pressure delegates into thinking that McCarthy had the best chance of winning in the general election. The demonstrations would be accompanied by a mass media campaign, that could be financed by consolidating the dozens of bank accounts where the Stevensonian Wall Street money sat inert. This would culminate in them challenging every single motion and rule at the national convention, followed by recommending a more democratic alternative. This would force the party bosses to either publicly support an undemocratic rule set, or force them to concede and leave themselves vulnerable to the chaos of democracy. Tom Finney argued that that would only antagonize the delegates, and that McCarthy should instead work the system behind the scenes, just like Humphrey was. Finney wanted to convince the party bosses and regulars that, despite his challenge against Johnson, McCarthy had been a loyal party man for twenty years who knew how to cooperate and play along. McCarthy never clearly approved of either plan, and they were both half-implemented going forward, without any clear direction or chain of command.

    McCarthy began his convention tour starting in Idaho before making his way east. He stopped in Arizona, New Mexico, and the District of Columbia, before through most of the Midwestern states. After resting for a few days in Minnesota, McCarthy returned west, attending the conventions in Washington, Colorado, and Utah, before visiting Pennsylvania, and then heading South. McCarthy notably drew larger crowds in Virginia than any other candidate, but the delegates there were well beyond his grasp. McCarthy made no particular appeal to the delegates at the state conventions; he opened with the same anti-war message he had been using sine New Hampshire, evoked his popular support and Kennedy’s endorsement, and then spent the rest of his time not discussing his candidacy. Rather, he focused on the nature of the Democratic Party, and how it had failed in its goals of international peace and domestic prosperity that it had laid out for itself at the 1964 Democratic National Convention. Humphrey was frequently at the state conventions as well, but no debates were held, and the two men completely ignored each other. In his speeches, Humphrey emphasized what he called “participation politics,” and encouraged the average American citizen to become more involved in the political process. McCarthy’s chief speech-writer, Jeremy Larner, remarked that Humphrey was a hypocrite for calling for participation politics when, in his name, “party regulars were closing caucuses, stealing delegations, and ignoring primaries…” and that whenever McCarthy discussed an issue, “the next day Humphrey would say the same thing, and twice as sincerely, just as if he were not party of the government whose inaction he deplored.” But, despite the fact that Larner and the speech-writing team had prepared an entire booklet of Humphrey’s weak points, McCarthy refused to use it. He claimed that if he went after Humphrey, and if Humphrey then went on to win the nomination but lose the general election, that he would be blamed. Finney suspected that the excuse of party unity was to cover for the fact that, despite their rocky relationship, McCarthy believed that Humphrey was the only other candidate in 1968 who had the potential of being a better president than himself.

    As McCarthy continued his tour, the grassroots fight continued. The greatest success for McCarthy’s volunteers was in the western states, where the party regulars were not as firmly entrenched. In Colorado, McCarthy did not have an official organization. Rather, his supporters composed half of the Coalition for an Alternative Candidate (CAC). Formed in January of 1968, the anti-war CAC supported McCarthy by default, but amicably split into two groups when Kennedy entered the race. With Kennedy’s withdrawal and endorsement of McCarthy, the two halves just as amicably reunited, and together obtained a narrow majority of their states’ delegates. In North Dakota, McCarthy supporters had failed to set up an effective campaign anywhere but the city of Fargo, but there they received landslide numbers. At the North Dakota convention, the McCarthy supporters were in a minority, but were at least granted a number of delegates proportionate to their numbers. In New Mexico, McCarthy supporters were led by Sterling Black, a state senator and the son of Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black. Fighting through the dirty tricks of the party regulars and allying with the Kennedy supporters in the state, Black was able to pass a proportional vote proposal that gave the combined anti-war delegates a slim majority. Despite these gains, McCarthy was still clearly outmatched in the great delegate hunt, and his tour was turning into a disaster: in Oklahoma, he argued that he should only receive one or two delegates when they were prepared to give him six, and in Michigan, he refused to pledge that he would unconditionally endorse the Democratic nominee regardless of who it was, and mused that he would support the Republican Nelson Rockefeller under certain conditions [12].

    The pre-convention grassroots effort culminated in ‘McCarthy Day,’ held on August 15th. In thirty major cities across the nation, massive rallies were held in support of McCarthy. The candidate himself appeared at a Madison Square Garden rally that sold out completely and packed the venue. However, much of the goodwill that might have come with McCarthy Day was squandered by his reaction to the Warsaw Pact’s Invasion of Czechoslovakia shortly after, remarking, “I do not see this as a major world crisis. It is likely to have more serious consequences for the Communist Party in Russia than in Czechoslovakia. I saw no need for a midnight meeting of the U.S. National Security Council.” While McCarthy may have been technically correct that the invasion was an internal crisis of the Soviet bloc, his failure to clearly condemn it, or treat it with any sort of gravity, severely alienated him from ethnically Eastern European delegates, and those who were wavering between Humphrey and McCarthy.

    And it was in this atmosphere that the prelude to the Democratic National Convention began.

    Daley and Supporters.jpg

    "Don't make no waves, don't back no losers." Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago with a large number of his supporters.
    In the week leading up to the convention, the political forces that would come to a head were represented by seven men:

    President Lyndon Johnson. The President now regretted his previous declaration that he would not seek a second term. Uncertain of how to proceed, Johnson would watch the convention from his Texas ranch, and would wait for an opportunity to whip up an artificial draft movement that could secure his renomination. Despite his physical absence, Johnson still controlled the proceedings of the convention to the most minute detail. Men loyal to him were chairing the three pre-convention committees, chairing the convention itself, and hosting the convention. Even the seating, the order and length of speeches, and the daily agendas had been drawn up to Johnson’s specifications. If all went well, Johnson would arrive on the second day of the convention – his birthday – where he would show a documentary film listing all of his accomplishments [13], make a speech to the convention making himself available as a draft candidate, then have a birthday party. At that point, if all went well, he would be renominated by the party bosses, win re-election, end the war with honour, and save America. If all went well.

    Mayor Richard Daley. The archetype of big city party bosses everywhere, Mayor Daley was as effective a politician as he was intolerant of protestors; anti-war groups had been blocked from obtaining permits for public demonstration, and military-grade defences had been set up around the convention hall, the International Amphitheatre, in anticipation of violence. While Daley promised Johnson that he had the clout to whip up a draft movement, the President was not his first choice as the Democratic nominee. Daley was privately opposed to the Vietnam War, but considered McCarthy’s upheaval of the established order of things disqualifying as a candidate. If given the opportunity, Daley would try to deadlock the convention and put forward Ted Kennedy as a compromise candidate. Daley considered Humphrey a pushover, and the weakest of all the possible candidates, and would only support him as a last resort.

    Governor John Connally. The Governor of Texas and Lyndon Johnson’s protégé, John Connally came to the convention with split allegiances. Connally was the de facto leader of all the Southern delegations, and they would do what he said, within reason. Using the threat of a Johnson draft, Connally attempted to squeeze as many concessions out of Humphrey as possible, and planned to actually draft Johnson when the opportunity arose. Beyond his support for Johnson, Connally’s ultimate loyalty was to himself, and he would abandon any other obligation if it meant securing the vice presidency. To that end, Connally expected Humphrey to choose him for the vice presidency. As for the policy concessions, the most important one for Connally and the South was the continuation of the unit rule, which allowed states to vote as a single bloc, and, given the South’s tendency to all support the same candidate, gave them greater influence over the convention. The Saturday before the convention, Richard Goodwin, once again working for McCarthy, held a meeting with Connally in order to negotiate a deal with the devil: in exchange for Southern support for McCarthy, Connally would be made the vice presidential nominee, would have a say in cabinet appointments, and would have McCarthy’s word that he would continue Johnson’s fight to make the two Southerners Abe Fortas and Homer Thornberry Supreme Court Chief Justice and Supreme Court Justice, respectively. Working to draft Johnson and distasteful of Humphrey, Connally did not refuse the offer outright, little did he know, Goodwin had come without McCarthy’s permission [14].

    Vice President Hubert Humphrey. Having put aside his qualms with the Vietnam War for years in order to appease Johnson, the presidency itself was finally within Humphrey’s grasp. Rather than inspire any confidence, this resulted in a crippling political paralysis. The President demanded total loyalty, but his lukewarm support in return was the only thing that gave Humphrey any chance of securing the nomination [15]. While Humphrey offered total loyalty, it made him unacceptable to McCarthy’s supporters, and while his instincts were anti-war, he had vociferously defended the Vietnam War since 1965, and continued to do so. Humphrey believed that if he could navigate the final hurdle that was the 1968 convention, that he could finally be his own man.

    Senator Ted Kennedy. With Bobby Kennedy hospitalized, any hope that remains of having a Kennedy at the top of the ballot lied with Ted. However, the Kennedys were in an uncomfortable position: officially, they were supporting McCarthy, but they had put in very little effort to support him after California. Bobby was already beginning to regret his endorsement of McCarthy, but could not retract it without being politically pilloried, so the two brothers, one absent and one present, walked a political tightrope. Ted was content to support McCarthy, while Bobby and the rest of the family encouraged him to take advantage of McCarthy’s weakness to try and position himself as a compromise candidate. Many of McCarthy’s prominent convention supporters, such as Senator George McGovern of South Dakota [14], and Speaker of the California State Assembly Jesse Unruh, were more inclined toward the Kennedys to begin with, and could be relied upon to switch allegiances if Humphrey and McCarthy reached a stalemate. Kennedy had also received accolades for drafting the anti-war plank that would be proposed during the pre-convention committee hearings. However, despite all this, Ted would make no moves to intentionally undermine McCarthy. He would accept the nomination only if Humphrey and McCarthy were genuinely deadlocked.

    Senator Eugene McCarthy. On the eve of the convention, McCarthy was the only other candidate with any chance of defeating Humphrey, and even then, it was an unlikely prospect. It was unclear if Humphrey would be able to win on the first ballot, but it seemed likely. McCarthy came to the convention with two goals in mind, those being to force the party to end its support of the Vietnam War – either by having them adopt a peace plank in the platform or by becoming the nominee himself – and to use his New Politics to reform the party and the political process in general. With slim odds before him, McCarthy took on a passive role, and made no further efforts on his own behalf. Like Adlai Stevenson before him, he waited for the nomination to come to him, and left his fate in the hands of his supporters and God. Namely, this meant his floor manager, Pat Lucey, and his special envoy, Richard Goodwin. After a long absence due to sickness, Abigail McCarthy was also on the campaign trail with her husband again, and remained the only person in the world who could force him to make a decision he did not want to make.

    Lastly, Governor Lester Maddox. The Governor of Georgia and one of the various favourite son candidates running in the South, Maddox was a segregationist conservative Democrat who was treating his favourite son candidacy as a genuine effort to try and win the nomination. Maddox represented those reactionary Democrats who were beyond the control of even John Connally, and who would likely abandon the Democrats to support the third party efforts of the archsegregationist George Wallace in the general election.

    With these forces in place, three-hundred and thirty delegates were split evenly between three committees to discuss rules, credentials, and the Democratic platform, before the convention began in earnest. The committees would discuss matters, present developed opposing viewpoints, then send them to the convention to be voted on by the delegates if an agreement could not be reached. It was here that Stephen A. Mitchell’s grassroots opposition plan made its debut.

    Lester Maddox with sign 1964.jpg

    Governor Lester Maddox of Georgia, making his policy positions quite clear. Maddox was a segregationist conservative Democrat who was a minor candidate at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. His Georgia delegation was the focal point of many fights between the delegates at the convention.
    On the Rules Committee, the McCarthy forces advocated for the abolition of the unit rule, claiming that it was representative of the authoritarian bossism that controlled the party process. Humphrey had flip-flopped between his personal support of abolishing the unit rule, and his promises to the South that it would be kept. Left without clear instructions, the delegates loyal to Humphrey agreed with McCarthy’s delegates, and put forward a majority report in favour of abolishing the unit rule.

    On the Credentials Committee, McCarthy supporters challenged the credentials of no less than fifteen state delegations, citing unfairness against them in the selection process, and attacking the undemocratic methods which had been used decide the delegates. Governor Richard Hughes of New Jersey, a Johnson loyalist and war supporter, oversaw the proceedings. Hearings started on Monday and lasted longer than a full business day, each day, until Friday. Using the precedence of the 1964 Democratic National Convention ruling that had banned racial discrimination in the delegate selection process, the McCarthy supporters were able to eject the all-white Mississippi delegation and replace it with a racially integrated one, and cut the numbers of the all-white Georgia delegation in half. The second half was granted to a pro-McCarthy slate headed by Julian Bond, a black civil rights activist and member of the Georgia House of Representatives. Trying to rally Southern support after his supporters had voted in favour of recommending the abolition of the unit rule, Humphrey helped protect the other Southern delegations, but also supported the removal of the Mississippi delegation and the division of the Georgia delegation. Humphrey’s middle stance pleased no one, and he received no credit in either camp. Hughes concluded the week-long hearings with a recommendation that the delegate-selection process be completely reformed by 1972, but he refused to rule on most of the credentials votes, instead deferring it to the convention to vote on.

    The greatest battle was on the Platform Committee, where it was to be decided what the party’s official position on the Vietnam War would be. Once again, Humphrey was stuck between his loyalty to Johnson and his predisposition to supporting the peace plank: Johnson demanded that Humphrey could only support a Vietnam plank on the condition that it was approved by both Secretary of State Dean Rusk and National Security Advisor Walt Rostow. However, after hearing the peace plank, Humphrey believed he could reach a compromise based on it. The peace plank’s four main points were a bombing halt of North Vietnam while continuing to support South Vietnam, a phased mutual withdrawal of American and North Vietnamese forces, the unilateral beginning of military withdrawal, and a call for the South Vietnamese government to form a “broadly representative” government with the National Liberation Front. Humphrey negotiated with the McCarthy delegates to soften the language of their plank while keeping their policy proposals the same, and estimated they agreed on eighty percent of the proposals. He then contacted Rusk and Rostow, who both approved, as well as Connally and the Southern governors, who blandly replied that, “they could live with it.” Despite being on the verge of an agreement, Johnson sabotaged the whole affair. Meeting with the Platform Committee’s chair, House Majority Whip Hale Boggs of Louisiana, Johnson denounced the peace plank as unacceptable, and demanded that an administration plank in favour of his own exact policies be put forward as the majority position [16]. Phoning the President in a desperate attempt to clear up the matter, Humphrey confirmed he got Rusk and Rostow’s approval, to which Johnson replied, “Well, this plank just undercuts our whole policy, and, by God, the Democratic party ought not to be doing that to me and you ought not to be doing it; you’ve been a part of this policy.” Despite being warned that, “You must stay the course on Vietnam if you expect to be nominated,” Humphrey, for the first time in three years, trusted his own instincts and stood up to the President. Believing that the election would be unwinnable without the support of the united anti-war faction of the party, Humphrey thought that if he supported the peace plank but held a moderate position himself, that he could unify the party [17]. Despite this, Boggs narrowly forced through the administration plank as the majority position, although both planks would be presented to the convention to vote on.

    Thus, the pre-convention committees concluded, having resolved very few of the disagreements that the convention itself would now have to face.

    Meanwhile, the New Left had arrived in Chicago to protest the Democratic National Convention, in significantly less numbers than they were hoping for. Under the auspices of the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam (the Mobe), David Dellinger, Tom Hayden, and Rennie Davis, were organized a protest they claimed would have three hundred thousand attendees. Privately, they expected around one hundred thousand, but in actuality, only five thousand initially came, and would peak at around ten thousand. Most were scared off by Mayor Daley’s refusal to grant demonstration permits, and his threats of a crackdown against any protest. The low numbers were also influenced, in part, by McCarthy’s insistence that his college corps stay at home. McCarthy did not want the New Left to take advantage of his supporters by seducing them to radicalism, so instead he had encouraged them to become involved in local political activism instead for the length of the convention. The New Left’s protests began on Friday, August 23rd, three days before the beginning of the convention. Abbie Hoffman and the Yippies arrived to nominate a pig named Pigasus for president, and demanded he be taken to Lyndon Johnson’s ranch to be given a policy briefing. At the same time, the Women Strike for Peace (WSP) held a picket of the Hilton Hotel across from the International Amphitheatre, where the convention delegates and candidates were staying. Lincoln Park became the unofficial headquarters of the protestors, gathering there each day, and being pushed out by a police-enforced curfew each night. The next day, the Yippies’ planned Festival of Life was dispersed by the police, leading to a street riot. The violence escalated from there, with some protestors throwing debris at the police – especially at night – and the police indiscriminately attacking protestors in return. Caught in the middle were the reporters and journalists covering the action, who were attacked by the police nearly as much as the protestors were. As the convention officially began, the violence in the streets only grew worse.

    Pigasus Arrested.jpg

    "Pigs with the pig." To the delight of the Yippies, Pigasus, their 'presidential candidate,' was arrested and hauled away by the police. A second pig was soon found to act as his replacement.

    Monday, August 26th. The convention opened at 7:31p.m. with a syncopated rock version of “The Star-Spangled Banner,” as sung by Aretha Franklin. Following Humphrey’s decision to support the peace plank during the Platform Committee hearings, Johnson had entirely abandoned his vice president. Likewise, Daley had put aside any thoughts of supporting Humphrey, and instead tried to organize a draft of Ted Kennedy, with a draft of the President being his back-up plan. Working behind the scenes, Stephen Smith, the Kennedys’ brother-in-law, privately met with Humphrey delegates to discuss the possibility of Ted Kennedy as a compromise candidate, and received encouraging support. Despite this, Kennedy refused to allow anyone to organize on his behalf until after the first ballot. Meeting with Smith, McCarthy conceded that he likely did not have the support to win, and would withdraw and support Kennedy if it comes to a second ballot. But, he gratuitously hastened to add, “While I’m doing this for Teddy, I never could have done it for Bobby [18].”

    Serving as the chair of the convention was House Majority Leader Carl Albert. Seated closest to him were the pro-Johnson delegations, with Daley and the Illinois delegation being front and centre. The anti-war delegations had been seated in the back, with their microphones set on mute.

    The first order of business was the majority report of the Rules Committee to abolish the unit rule. Southern delegates heckled and shouted down Humphrey delegates as sellouts for previously promising to maintain the unit rule. After a bitter floor fight between Southern and McCarthy delegates, the final vote was delayed. The Credentials Committee’s proposals were next. The McCarthy delegates initially demanded that Lester Maddox’s Georgia delegation be expelled entirely and replaced with Julian Bond’s, with the South demanding the opposite in return. Going even further, some more radical McCarthy delegates were demanded that all of Humphrey’s delegates should have been removed. A motion was put forward to split the Texas delegation much like Georgia’s. at 11:00p.m., another riot broke out in Lincoln Park, and the first day of the convention was adjourned at 3:00a.m., without any resolution on either the rules or credentials fights. Johnson was still awake, drafting his unfinished address to the convention, when the proceedings ended.

    Tuesday, August 27th, Lyndon Johnson’s birthday. The President had a plane on stand-by to bring him to Chicago. Several more floor fights broke out over the previous day’s votes. Texas and the other Southern states survive their credentials challenges, leading to a walkout by many black delegates. Both the Maddox and Bond Georgia delegations are accepted as each representing half of their state. Daley contacted Ted Kennedy to tell him that he had enough support to guarantee a second ballot if they entered his name then and there, but Kennedy still refused. Johnson is still undecided on if he would come. With Daley still uncommitted, Connally believed he could force Humphrey’s hand. Meeting with the candidate, Connally and the Southern governors demanded that a Southerner be nominated as the vice president, with the obvious implication that it should be Connally. Seemingly oblivious to the Governor’s ambitions, Humphrey agreed, and declared that he would choose the liberal Senator Fred R. Harris of Oklahoma as his running mate. Stunned by the bizarre choice and his rejection, Connally instead suggested the former Deputy Secretary of Defense, Cyrus Vance of West Virginia [19]. Once Humphrey left the room, Connally discussed the possibility of drafting Johnson to the Southern governors, an idea which they unanimously rejected. Afraid that Johnson’s unpopularity would hurt their down ballot efforts, they refuse to support a draft. Johnson is informed of this, and a string of other catastrophes: the Texas delegation had been harassed and heckled for entire day, even when out on the streets, as a means to harass the President; a new poll came out indicating that Johnson would do no better as the Democratic than either Humphrey or McCarthy; Daley had called the President to warn him that there was not enough support among the party bosses to guarantee his renomination; his Secret Service bodyguards warned that they could not guarantee his safety, and that he would likely be physically attacked by protestors if spotted, and, worst of all, the unit rule had been abolished in a floor vote. Without the unit rule, Johnson would have to impress a majority of the delegates, rather than a handful of party bosses, in order to secure his renomination. Vacillating for the rest of the day, Johnson ultimately decided not to go, but also refused to support Humphrey for his impertinence in supporting the peace plank, leaving the Southern delegates rudderless [20].

    As rowdy delegates were being dragged out of the convention hall, and as reporters were being pushed aside by Daley’s security guards, yet another riot broke out in in Lincoln Park. At 1:00a.m., Hale Boggs started reading the administration plank, but was drowned out by yelling from the anti-war delegations. Believing that the late reading was a plot to hide the plank from the public by intentionally voting on it late, the anti-war delegations demanded an adjournment, which was eventually granted after the yelling made continuing impossible. Gone for most of the evening to attend the wedding anniversary party of his son, Humphrey was unaware of exactly how close his massive lead was to total collapse.

    Wednesday, August 28th. Humphrey was being stonewalled. Both Daley and Governor John McKeithen of Louisiana had cancelled their meetings with him. Humphrey was suspicious, and began making contingencies for a second ballot, but continued to believe that he was ultimately the only acceptable candidate to both Daley and the South. His only fear is that Ted Kennedy may be able to win if he cannot secure a quick majority. However, Humphrey does not have much time to think about his options as his staff, bloated with several decades’ worth of personal friends, advisors, and confidantes, have packed his schedule with relatively insignificant meetings.

    On the floor, the vote on the party’s Vietnam policy is held. By the narrowest of margins, the minority plank won out; the administration plank was rejected, and the Democratic nominee would support a platform rejecting the policies of the previous Democratic nominee [21]. At the same time that McCarthy made his first appearance on the convention floor to celebrate the peace plank’s victory, and Humphrey was having an interview with Times-Life magazine to explain how his support for the peace plank was not a repudiation of the President, Connally was looking for Richard Goodwin. Having lost on the unit rule and the Vietnam platform, Johnson had realized that not only had he lost control of the party, but that every possible candidate was opposed to him on some level, and ironically, unlike four years earlier, McCarthy truly was shaping up to be everyone’s second choice. Consigning himself to political oblivion, Johnson gave Connally his blessing to take whatever course of action he thought was best, even if that meant an alliance with McCarthy [22]. With the plank battle over, a recess was called at 5:00p.m., with the convention to reconvene at 6:30p.m., to choose the Democratic nominee for president. As McCarthy and Connally held a meeting on the eve of the vote, and delegates prepared for the hours-long process of nominating and seconding speeches, ten thousand protestors had gathered at Grant Park, for one of the only protests that Daley had granted a permit for. An hour into the event, a protestor climbed a flagpole in the park in order to flip Old Glory upside-down, resulting in a group of police officers dragging him down and beating him senseless. Enraged, the protestors once again began throwing debris at the police, which trigged a harsh reprisal. Dave Dellinger began calling for a peaceful march on the International Amphitheatre, while Tom Hayden called for a guerilla war against the city, with Rennie Davis having been knocked out by the police. Those who stayed in the park were beaten, while those who tried to leave were also beaten, with it all being broadcast on live television. Eventually, the anti-war protestors were able to attach themselves to an unrelated, Poor People’s Campaign march which Daley had granted a permit to. Chanting “The Whole World is Watching,” the protestors made their way to the International Amphitheatre and the Hilton Hotel, only to be caught in a pincer maneuver by the police, in the most vicious incident of police violence of the whole convention. Above it all was Eugene McCarthy and John Connally. Having gotten back in touch with Goodwin, Connally agreed to the grand bargain, but only with the added condition that McCarthy would not actively support any challenges to the Southern delegations in 1972. Even with the agreement presented to him as a fait accompli, McCarthy balked. The final deciding factor was Abigail McCarthy’s insistence, and her unique ability to force Gene to make decisions. With the deal struck, McCarthy looked down at the protestors caught between two walls of police and national guard. At first, he compared it to the Battle of Cannae and the massacre of Native Americans during the Indian Wars, before his academic detachment turned to fury at the excesses of the Chicago police. McCarthy quickly had his volunteers open the hotel to give refuge to the protestors who came off the street, but he could not stay to help – he needed to get ready.

    Humphrey McCarthy and McGovern shake hands.jpg

    "The Happy Warrior." Hubert Humphrey looks at the camera while Eugene McCarthy and his supporter, George McGovern, shake hands. The only debate held between the two candidates was in the days leading up to the Democratic National Convention, in front of the uncommitted Indiana delegation [23].
    After a chaotic day of last minute meetings and extracting pledges of support, Hubert Humphrey sat down in his hotel room’s easy chair as the roll call began. Surrounded by reporters and supporters, Humphrey put on a faux-brave face. He had his felt pen, and he had his pad of stationary, marked “Office of the Vice-President of the United States.” It was a tense moment. He knew that Daley and the Southerners had been avoiding him, and he had heard the rumours that Daley would try to deadlock the convention and support Ted Kennedy, but surely they would all realize he was only the acceptable candidate. He had worked inside the system; he had been the team player; he had served faithfully and loyally for all those years; he had negotiated a compromise with McCarthy, and now he, Hubert Horatio Humphrey, would finally get his reward. He would finally be his own man.

    The roll call began.

    “Mister Chairman, Alaska passes.”

    As he had been expecting. Alaska had planned to pass to avoid a confrontation within their delegation between pro-administration and pro-peace delegates. But, he also knew that he had seventeen out of Alaska’s twenty-two votes if they became necessary on a second ballot.

    “Mister Chairman, Alabama casts twenty-two votes for Senator Eugene McCarthy–“

    Oh.

    "–three votes for Governor George Wallace–"

    Oh.

    –and two abstentions."

    Oh no.

    convention_aug08_main.jpg

    The 1968 Democratic Convention, with its presidential nomination roll call in progress.

    All but the most in-the-know attendees were stunned. Alabama? For McCarthy!? But the voting continued in much the same way. McCarthy swept the entirety of the South, and gained enough defections from Humphrey to win in Iowa and Vermont. The western states that his volunteers had worked so hard for and the Kennedy endorsement had reinforced joined his column: Colorado, Nebraska, New Mexico, South Dakota. The rest of the west remained with Humphrey, carried on by inertia despite losing the President’s support, with most of the powerful Midwestern delegations weighing in for him too. However, both Illinois and Indiana voted for Ted Kennedy, and by the time half the states had voted, it was clear it would be either McCarthy or a second ballot. And then, at Wisconsin, McCarthy finally, just barely, gained a majority.

    In one of the most extravagant upsets in American political history, Senator Eugene McCarthy would be the Democratic nominee for president, and Governor John Connally of Texas would be his running mate.

    The New Deal Coalition had survived, but as a changed, shattered reflection of what it had once been.

    And from there, it was on to the general.

    [1] IOTL, McCarthy got thirty-nine percent in the Illinois primary, with Ted Kennedy coming in second at thirty-four percent, and Humphrey at seventeen percent. All candidates’ names were written in in the Illinois primary.

    [2] Coincidentally, four of McCarthy's bodyguards were also named Eugene. They also kept a dartboard with Humphrey's face on it.

    [3] IOTL, McCarthy's speechwriters prepared this speech, to be given in the Senate Caucus Room. However, McCarthy cancelled it after all the reporters had already arrived, relocated to the much smaller Senate Agricultural Committee hearing room, and adlibbed a short statement while staring at his table and not using a microphone. In all likelihood, this was part of the extended nervous breakdown that he suffered through the latter half of 1968, which was triggered by the assassination of Kennedy.

    [4] These are the same questions and answers that were given by McCarthy in his June 12 address as IOTL.

    [5] Harold M. Ickes is the son of Franklin Roosevelt's Secretary of the Interior, Harold L. Ickes. IOTL, he would later serve in various other presidential campaigns, and as Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy for Bill Clinton.

    [6] That is still better than IOTL, where he refused to make any appearances with his delegate candidates.

    [7] Even this non-answer is much more generous to Kennedy than his reaction IOTL, in which he said, “It's been my experience in twenty years in Congress that you really ought not to put through legislation under panic conditions.” McCarthy's speechwriter, Jeremy Larner, later remarked that, “If he had thought it over long and hard, he could not have chosen anything better calculated to alienate Kennedy people.”

    [8] Even IOTL, with the Kennedy-McCarthy feud unresolved, black support for McCarthy following Kennedy's assassination rose dramatically.

    [9] McCarthy's margin is somewhat better ITTL, winning in the low seventies, while IOTL he won sixty-two delegates. The committee’s ruling, and its results, are the same as IOTL. Additionally, both O'Dwyer and Lowenstein won IOTL as well as ITTL. Journalists were particularly surprised by O'Dwyer's win, and many believed it indicated that McCarthy had the potential for massive coattails. As Theodore H. White put it, “He had scored astoundingly well in the New York Democratic primaries... his coattails had dragged in Paul O'Dwyer, one of the more meager political figures in the Empire State, to New York's Democratic Senatorial nomination.” Additionally, New York had one of the highest crossover rates from Kennedy supporters to McCarthy, with even Eugene Nickerson, the pro-Kennedy Senate candidate who lost to O'Dwyer, working for the McCarthy campaign after the primary.

    [10] These numbers are similar to OTL, but more favourable for McCarthy with Kennedy's endorsement. IOTL, Kennedy had four hundred and seventy-five delegates, of which only seventy-five (or fifteen percent) went to McCarthy. Kennedy's smaller delegate count ITTL is due to McCarthy winning the California primary.

    [11] The unit rule was originally designed to empower smaller states by allowing them to invoke a simple rule that allowed them to vote as one bloc. However, it was frequently used and abused to enforce majority's decision by effectively erasing the minority's votes.

    [12] IOTL, after they had lost the Democratic and Republican nominations respectively, McCarthy was phoned by Nelson Rockefeller four times. McCarthy never bothered to return the calls, and it is unknown why exactly Rockefeller was calling. One could assume that Rockefeller wished to discuss the possibility of running a third party ticket, but McCarthy frequently stated that he would refuse to participate in any third party effort if he did not win the nomination.

    [13] It is unclear how long Connally and Goodwin discussed this potential alliance. Connally claimed in his memoir they only talked very briefly, while other sources from McCarthy’s campaign claimed that they talked for about an hour, and that Connally was more interested in the proposal than he was later willing to admit.

    [14] With Kennedy’s endorsement of McCarthy, George McGovern followed suit, and his late entry as a contender for the Democratic nomination has been butterflied away, thereby uniting the anti-war vote at the convention.

    [15] Despite officially supporting his Vice President, Johnson never explicitly endorsed Humphrey, forbade anyone in the cabinet or executive office from helping him (or any other candidate), and frequently disparaged him to the press. When Johnson was asked by a journalist what he thought of his Vice President’s contributions to the administration, Johnson replied, “He cries too much.” When asked for further comment, he said, "That's it. He cries too much."

    [16] Johnson’s opposition to the peace plank was so strong that he secretly phoned Richard Nixon, at that point the Republican nominee, to give him advice on how best to attack it.

    [17] IOTL, Humphrey backed down, and the various anti-war factions on the committee dissolved into bickering, with the administration plank easily passing. ITTL, with greater pressure from the combined anti-war delegates, and by overestimating McCarthy’s control over them, Humphrey stood firm, and continued to support the peace plank, but was overruled by Johnson anyway. The administration plank, practically written by Johnson, read, “We reject as unacceptable a unilateral withdrawal… We strongly support the Paris talks and applaud the initiative of President Johnson which brought North Vietnam to the peace table.” It would only stop all bombing of North Vietnam, “when the action would not endanger the lives of our troops. This action should take into account the response from Hanoi.”

    [18] McCarthy and Smith came to this same agreement IOTL, and McCarthy said these exact words.

    [19] These were the same reasons as IOTL for why Johnson ultimately decided not to attend the 1968 Democratic National Convention. However, unlike IOTL, he has refused to support Humphrey over his impertinence on the peace plank.

    [20] IOTL, Conally and the Southern governors did not confront Humphrey until after he had been nominated. Connally heavily implied that he should be the vice presidential nominee, which Humphrey evidently did not pick up on. He then told the Southerners that he would be nominating Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine, to which Connally gave his stunned reaction that Cyrus Vance would be a better choice. ITTL, with Humphrey in a more precarious position, Connally attempted to confront him before the presidential nomination, which equally backfired as IOTL. Fred Harris was Humphrey’s top choice for vice president besides Muskie, but ultimately decided against him, feeling that he was too young, at thirty-eight.

    [21] IOTL, the peace plank, was defeated in a vote of 1041¼ to 1567¾. ITTL, it narrowly passes, with the extra votes coming from McCarthy’s larger delegate count, Humphrey loyalists, and Humphrey delegates preparing to dump Humphrey for Kennedy on the second ballot.

    [22] The idea of Johnson allowing an alliance between McCarthy and the South is not as preposterous as it would seem on face value, and, to be clear, Johnson would have had to at least tacitly approve for it to have succeeded. In fact, IOTL, Tom Finney specifically designed McCarthy's campaign strategy in the lead-up to the convention to try and drive a wedge between Johnson in Humphrey, under the belief that Johnson would rather allow McCarthy to win then either help a perceived traitor, or to fulfill his nightmare of being a place-holder between two Kennedys.

    [23] IOTL, this debate was held between McCarthy, Humphrey, and McGovern in front of the uncommitted California delegation. ITTL, with California committed to McCarthy, it was held before the Indiana delegation instead.
     
    Last edited:
    The 1968 Party Conventions Results Breakdown
  • 1968 Party Conventions Results Breakdown

    The Republican Party
    1968 Republican Primaries.png

    Richard Nixon - 1,679,443 (37.5%)
    Nelson Rockefeller - 164,340 (3.7%)
    Ronald Reagan - 1,696,632 (37.9%)
    James Rhodes - 614,492 (13.7%)

    The Republican primaries passed with little attention or fanfare next to the tumultuous battles of their Democratic counterparts [1]. Having been laying the groundwork for a second presidential bid since 1966, Richard Nixon emerged early on as the only declared candidate, besides Governor George Romney of Michigan. Romney was the choice of the party's moderate-liberal Eastern Establishment, and its leader, Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York. Rockefeller felt that a third presidential bid on his part would be unsuccessful, after a stillborn effort in 1960, and a bitter and ultimately unsuccessful primary battle against the ultraconservative Senator Barry Goldwater in 1964. However, by the sheer weight of his influence within the party, Rockefeller's endorsement of Romney both ensured that no other moderate-liberal candidate would run, and convinced many that Romney was nothing but a stalking horse for an inevitable Rockefeller candidacy. With Rockefeller seemingly waiting in the wings, the news media picked apart Romney's capabilities and policies, culminating in a flustered interview where Romney claimed he had been "brainwashed" into supporting the Vietnam War. His poor choice of words, along with an announcement from Rockefeller that he would accept a draft effort on his own behalf, led to Romney collapsing in the polls, and withdrawing before the primaries had even begun.

    With no other announced candidate running against him, Nixon was able to run in most of the primaries unopposed. This played perfectly into his strategy to remove his association with being a loser by sweeping the primaries, as well as his strategy to appear as inoffensive as possible. The only bumps in the road were a successful write-in effort that won Massachusetts for Rockefeller, and the pro-Rockefeller Governor James Rhodes of Ohio's uncontested victory in his home state. As the primaries continued, Rockefeller disillusioned many of his supporters by declaring he would unequivocally not be a candidate for president, despite giving several indicators that he was about to announce his candidacy. This last minute change of mind embarrassed many of Rockefeller's supporters who had staked their reputations on his imminent candidacy, leaving him with a diminished pool of supporters when he ultimately did announce his candidacy shortly before the Republican National Convention.

    As the primaries began to reach their conclusion, Governor Ronald Reagan of California, the ideological successor to Barry Goldwater, tried to position himself as a presidential contender while officially sticking to his position as a favourite son candidate, but, with Nixon's victory in neighbouring Oregon, Reagan's chances of nomination seemed slim. However, on the votes of California alone, Reagan was able to win a plurality of the popular vote in the primaries. Despite this, Reagan and Rockefeller came to an agreement that they would try and steal Nixon delegates from the ideological right and left of the party respectively, in the hopes that they could deprive him of a first ballot victory. They both hoped that with the party centrist Nixon out of the way, it would be down to the two of them, where they could compete in a clear confrontation of conservatives and liberals to decide the party's fate. As part of this strategy, Rockefeller encouraged governors loyal to him to run as favourite son candidates whose states' delegates would be bound to vote for, in order to prevent Nixon from getting them.

    Republican Convention 1968.png

    Richard Nixon - 692
    Nelson Rockefeller - 277
    Ronald Reagan - 182
    James Rhodes - 55
    George Romney - 50
    Clifford Case - 22
    Frank Carlson - 20
    Winthrop Rockefeller - 18
    Hiram Fong - 14
    Harold Stassen - 2
    John Lindsay - 1

    Needing six hundred and sixty-six and a half delegates to win the nomination, Nixon pulled off a narrow victory on the first ballot. The key to his success had been in the South. Nixon had allied with the Dixiecrat-turned-Republican Strom Thurmond to rally the South to his cause, despite the majority of Southern delegates being more inclined to Reagan. Nixon positioned himself as conservative enough to be acceptable, while also using fears of Rockefeller potentially getting the nomination to discourage defections to Reagan. The rest of his margin came from Midwestern states without a favourite son candidate or strong Rockefeller support, and in most of the western interior states. Fearing the crippling infighting that had destroyed them in 1964, many delegates were willing to settle for the known quantity and loyal party man that was Richard Nixon.

    Continuing his strategy of being as inoffensive as possible to the largest portion of the American electorate as possible, Nixon considered a long list of vice presidential nominees. Those clearly on the right or left of the party, such as Reagan or Mayor John Lindsay of New York City were eliminated. Nixon would have liked Lieutenant Governor Robert Finch of California, one of his closest friends and advisors, but Finch believed he did not have the profile for the vice presidency and that his selection would appear to be a case of nepotism, and removed himself from consideration. The final two contestants were Governor John Volpe of Massachusetts, and Governor Spiro Agnew of Maryland. Volpe was a Republican of the Eastern Establishment who was not clearly aligned with Rockefeller, but many Southern delegates were wary of him as being too liberal, so Nixon ultimately settled on Agnew. The Governor of Maryland had been one of those who had stacked his reputation on Rockefeller's announcement of his candidacy, and his incorrect prediction of Rockefeller's imminent announcement deeply embarrassed him in front of the media; Rockefeller had failed to notify Agnew that he had changed his mind, and Agnew had brought several reporters into his office to watch the announcement with him, expecting a positive declaration. Courted by Nixon afterward, Agnew had been able to shift most of Maryland's delegates in the former Vice President's favour, helping to guarantee his nomination. With a non-existent national profile and a moderate reputation, Nixon was content in the belief that Agnew would continue to be a non-entity on the national ticket, in order to sustain his 'inoffensive offensive.'


    GOP68.png


    The Democratic Party
    1968 Democratic Primaries.png

    Eugene McCarthy - 3,217,594 (42.2%)
    Robert Kennedy - 2,263,385 (29.7%)
    Lyndon Johnson - 383,590 (5.0%)
    Stephen Young - 549,140 (7.2%)
    George Smathers - 236,242 (3.1%)

    At first, Eugene McCarthy's decision to run in the Democratic primaries was a protest action against President Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam War. Nearing the end of his political career and with no one, not even Johnson's nemesis Bobby Kennedy, willing to run against the President, McCarthy decided to do it himself. With little expectation of actually winning, McCarthy intended to spook the President into adopting a less hawkish position as the official plank of the upcoming Democratic National Convention. However, even McCarthy had underestimated the level of discontent that Johnson was facing. With the Tet Offensive undermining popular support for the Vietnam War, McCarthy was able to win a near-victory in the New Hampshire primary, with Bobby Kennedy entering the contest shortly after. Facing a bitter primary challenge and failing health, Johnson announced to a shocked nation that he would not seek, and would not accept his party's nomination for president. With Johnson stepping down, his vice president, Hubert Humphrey, declares his candidacy as well, but chose not to compete in the primaries.

    McCarthy enjoyed a grace period where he ran unopposed in Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania, before facing off against Kennedy in the Indiana primary. Chronically disorganized and failing to adapt to the changing political landscape, McCarthy placed third in Indiana behind Kennedy and the Governor of Indiana, Roger Branigin. McCarthy was similarly blown away in the Nebraska primary, before the candidates headed for the West Coast.

    Hiring a new campaign coordinator, adopting populist rhetoric, and choosing the campaign theme of New Politics, McCarthy was able to lean into his strengths to win the Oregon primary, with Bobby suffering the first election defeat of a Kennedy in American political history. The final challenge came in California, with Kennedy declaring that he would withdraw his candidacy if he did not win in the the Golden State. In an intense period of campaigning, a debate between the two candidates went decisively in McCarthy's favour, winning him the primary. Shortly after declaring his withdrawal, Kennedy was shot several times by a would-be assassin named Sirhan Sirhan. In a near-death state, Kennedy endorsed McCarthy, uniting the anti-war faction of Democrats for the upcoming Democratic National Convention. Kennedy would eventually recover from his wounds, but a spinal injury from the shooting left him mostly paralyzed from the waist-down for the rest of his life.

    In the non-primary states, McCarthy fared poorly against Humphrey, who had locked up enough delegates to theoretically win a commanding majority on the first ballot. However, Humphrey's refusal to support President Johnson's administration plank on the Vietnam War led to a quiet crumbling of his support of which McCarthy proved the benefactor.

    Democratic Convention 1968.png

    Eugene McCarthy - >1311.5
    Hubert Humphrey - <1311.5
    Edward Kennedy - ≈180.25
    Channing Phillips - ≈42.5
    Daniel Moore - 19.5
    James H. Gray Sr. - 16.5
    George Wallace - 3
    Abstain - 34

    In one of the greatest upsets in American political history, Eugene McCarthy was able to secure the Democratic nomination on the first ballot [2], exceeding the required majority of one thousand three hundred eleven and a half votes. His success was due to an agreement that had been reached with Governor John Connally of Texas, the leader of the Southern delegates. In exchange for the vote of the South, McCarthy agreed to choose Connally as his running mate, to continue Johnson's ongoing battle to appoint Abe Fortas and Homer Thornberry to the Supreme Court, to allow Connally a say over cabinet picks, and to not actively support future challenges by his grassroots supporters against the Democratic Establishment in the South. Ironically, of the Southern states, McCarthy did the poorest in those whose credentials had been successfully challenged by his supporters; in the new Mississippi delegation there was significant support for Humphrey, and in Georgia, many of the white delegates instead voted for favourite son James H. Gray Sr. McCarthy also lost a sizable minority of North Carolina's delegates to favourite son Daniel Moore. Otherwise, his decades-long working relationship with senior Southern Democratic officials, mixed with the conformist mentality of many delegates, handed him a unanimous vote in many states. Outside of the South, most of McCarthy's support came from the West Coast, New England, and New York, along with pockets of support in the Midwest and the western interior states.

    In the weeks following their nomination, the McCarthy/Connally ticket struggled to gain cohesion due to their stark ideological differences.

    Dem68.PNG


    [1] Everything involving the Republican primaries and convention of 1968 are the same as IOTL.
    [2] Throughout all my research, I was not able to find the exact delegate count in the states after Pennsylvania (the state which, IOTL, put Humphrey over the top). Because of this, I am not able to give an exact number to McCarthy's delegate vote ITTL's first ballot. States which I had not been able to find the exact delegate count for have been left intentionally blank, with their colour indicating who won in that state.
     
    Last edited:
    Chapter Five - Vote For Gene McCarthy
  • Chapter Five - Vote For Gene McCarthy

    In one of the more bizarre political alliances in American history, both anti-war protestors and Southern delegates celebrated the best possible outcome of a bad situation, in the form of the nomination of Eugene McCarthy and John Connally.

    Unlike the carnage of the past week, the final two days of the convention brought a relative peace to the city of Chicago. Even many of the New Left protestors who claimed to hate McCarthy at least attended the celebration in Grant Park, but for their own ends. In particular, Tom Hayden of the Mobe still tried to radicalize the protestors, claiming they were, “a vanguard of people who are experienced in fighting for their survival under military conditions.” However, any remaining hopes the New Left had of keeping ideological control of the protestors ended with the arrival of McCarthy himself. Introduced to the stage by the famous black comedian Dick Gregory, McCarthy gave a quick address, joking that it was easier to get into Grant Park than the convention hall, and proclaimed to the protestors that his nomination proved that they could work within the system. Following McCarthy’s departure, Hayden tried to convince the audience that McCarthy had sold out by aligning himself with the South, but it was clear that all but the most militant of the New Left would be working for McCarthy until the election.

    While the New Left considered the Chicago riots to be a great victory, the rest of the country disagreed: polling indicated that a majority of Americans sided with the police, and forty percent of voters who favoured unilateral withdrawal from Vietnam believed that the Chicago police had used insufficient force. In the weeks following the Democratic National Convention, the Mobe saw a massive decline in active participation, as their core membership, the liberal-to-moderate antiwar middle class, abandoned the organization in droves to volunteer for the McCarthy campaign instead [1]. However, even with an influx of support from members of the Mobe, the Democratic Party was in an absolute shamble. After Chicago, McCarthy dropped five points in the polls below his Republican opponent, Richard Nixon, while the third party bid of the archsegegregationist George Wallace was rising in popularity [2]. Many of the union and Democratic state leaders who had been expecting an easy convention victory for Humphrey were blindsided by McCarthy’s nomination, and were reluctant to give him their support, despite a speedy endorsement from the Vice President [3]. Likewise, the alliance with the South was off to a rough start, as Connally had to answer awkward questions from the press on why he had suddenly decided to support McCarthy when he had, for over a year, castigated him as a party-wrecker and soft on communism. To top it all off, McCarthy’s national headquarters had reached a state of near-total paralysis; any sort of chain of command had completely eroded in a clash of conflicting responsibilities, personal rivalries, and mixed messages. It was only made worse by three new layers of office politics, when both former Kennedy and Humphrey political advisors, Southern political operatives working for Connally, and the Democratic Party’s official apparatus all tried to worm their way into the campaign. Nearly collapsing under its own weight, the McCarthy national headquarters was divided between the original grassroots Dump Johnson supporters led by Curtis Gans, McCarthy’s pre-campaign Senate staff led by Jerry Eller, McCarthy’s small team of political professionals led by Tom Finney, the Stevensonian Wall Street bankers represented by Thomas Finletter, Kennedy carryovers led by Richard Goodwin and Pat Lucey, Humphrey carryovers led by Fred Harris and Walter Mondale, Connally loyalists and Southern advisors led by Robert S. Strauss, and representatives of the new, McCarthy-appointed Democratic National Committee Chair Philip H. Hoff [4]. With his national headquarters incapable of making any centralized decisions, McCarthy’s chances of being elected were entirely at the mercy of the state parties, and most of them refused to cooperate. This left Nixon with a clear path to the White House, and everyone knew it. The only person who did not seem concerned was McCarthy himself, who continued to hold a blasé, academic, and moralistic opinion on presidential politics. Deciding to ignore the opinion polls entirely, he would simply present himself to the voters, and they would decide.

    Connally at 1968 DNC.jpg

    Texas' Favourite Son, Governor John Connally, at the 1968 Democratic National Convention with his delegation.

    Richard Nixon was in the midst of the greatest political comeback in American history. Having previously served two terms as vice president as the running mate of President Dwight Eisenhower, Nixon had narrowly lost the presidency to Jack Kennedy in the Election of 1960. Attempting to regain his footing, in 1962, Nixon ran for Governor of California, where he went down in embarrassing defeat to the incumbent Democrat. Declaring, “You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore,” his political career seemed unquestionably over. However, despite what appeared to be the brutal end of his chances for elected office, Nixon remained quietly involved in Republican affairs. In the 1964 Republican primary, Nixon discreetly tried to position himself as a compromise candidate between the party’s conservatives, represented by Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, and the party’s moderate-liberal Eastern Establishment, represented by Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York. Although Goldwater had been able to quickly secure the nomination at the 1964 Republican National Convention, the bitter infighting and Goldwater’s fringe positions paved the way for Lyndon Johnson’s crushing landslide victory, but, it also left an opportunity for an uncontroversial figure to step in and unify the party. Nixon, who had since moved to New York to work for the prestigious legal firm Nixon Mudge Rose Guthrie & Alexander (with himself as the newly added titular Nixon), used his new connections in New York law to hire an inexperienced but enthusiastic and innovative new staff to prepare for a presidential run in 1968. Prominently campaigning for many Republicans during the 1966 midterm elections, Nixon had established himself as the man to beat for the Republican nomination. His only clear opponent had been Governor George Romney of Michigan, a Rockefeller-backed member of the Eastern Establishment. However, under intense media scrutiny, Romney’s campaign self-destructed before the primaries had even begun, after a gaffe where he remarked he had been “brainwashed” into supporting the Vietnam War, as well as a statement by Rockefeller indicating that he would be entering the race himself. In the aftermath, Romney withdrew. However, Rockefeller, unsure of his chances, denied that he would be running, leaving Nixon unopposed in the primaries. By the time Rockefeller formally announced, Nixon had already swept the primaries, and many delegates who might have otherwise supported him were already committed. On the other end of the party was Governor of California Ronald Reagan. Formerly an actor, Reagan had laid the foundations for his political career by vocally supporting Goldwater in 1964, and had swept into office in a landslide in 1966, in part because of Nixon’s midterm campaigning [5]. Laying claim to the conservative wing of the party, Reagan was equally hesitant to attempt to directly challenge Nixon, for fear that it would cause a split similar to 1964. As the convention opened in Miami Beach on August 5th, Nixon deftly played the two wings of the party off of each other; by stoking fears of a Rockefeller nomination, he was able to gain the support of conservative Republicans such as Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and Barry Goldwater himself, both of whom would otherwise have supported Reagan. Additionally, by presenting himself as the guaranteed, uncontroversial, inevitable winner of both the nomination and the election to come, Nixon was able to hold enough support with delegates from the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic who might otherwise have supported Rockefeller. With this deft political manoeuvring, Nixon was able to narrowly win the nomination on the first ballot. Wishing to keep things as simple as possible, decided to choose a non-entity as his vice president, in the form of Governor of Maryland Spiro Agnew. Agnew had previously been one of Rockefeller’s most fervent supporters, but Rockefeller’s earlier declaration of non-candidacy embarrassed Agnew, who had boldly declared Rockefeller’s imminent candidacy, and had brought several reporters into his office to watch the 'campaign launch,' only for him to declare he was not a candidate. Agnew had then switched his loyalties to Nixon, and had secured the Maryland delegation for him during the nominating process. Nixon believed that the moderate, unknown Agnew would be a safe choice as his running mate.

    Once nominated, Nixon prepared to implement the strategy he had been setting up for years. As far back as 1966, Nixon had been specifically planning on running against Johnson in 1968. To that end, he had spent his time out of office cultivating an image as a respected elder statesman, providing very public 'helpful' criticism of the President. Always waiting for a moment of weakness, Nixon would tut and wag his finger at every setback in Vietnam, riot in the streets, or unpopular economic decision. Presenting himself as above the fray and an experienced administrator, Nixon hoped to make his core demographics the traditional Republican voters of rural areas and suburbia, as well as expand into those demographics in the South, where they had traditionally voted Democratic. In order to garner the support of the South and middle America, Nixon adopted a vague, mild-mannered opposition to social disorder, crime, government overreach, and Johnson's handling of the Vietnam War. He promised he would not support school busing desegregation, and pledged to appoint less “activist” judges to the Supreme Court. The latter point was a reference to the judicial activism of Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren. The Warren Court had been one of the most famously liberal in American history, making landmark decisions on civil rights, criminal procedure, the separation of church and state, and other issues. With Warren himself retiring, there was an opportunity for whoever won the election to appoint a new Chief Justice and redefine the courts. Nixon's call for judges who would more strictly adhere to the Constitution carried the implication that judicial appointments under a Nixon Administration would at least slow the nation's rapidly accelerating social progress. However, as part of his centre-right strategy, Nixon conceded the traditional Democratic demographics of the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic, namely, urban, ethnic, unionized, and black voters. Believing that his plea to the “forgotten American” implicitly included middle class unionized and black voters, Nixon made no special effort to try and win them over. As for Vietnam, Nixon nebulously promised “peace with honor,” and questioned the means by which the war was being fought, but not the ultimate goal of a negotiated peace that would ensure South Vietnam's continued existence. Although surprised by McCarthy's nomination, Nixon did not change his strategy, believing that McCarthy would not be able to overcome the fundamental differences within the Democratic Party. Nixon's chief concern, at least for the time being, was the populist upstart campaign of former Governor of Alabama George Wallace.

    Nixon In Chicago.jpg

    "Nixon's the One." Visiting Chicago shortly after the Democratic National Convention, Nixon emphasized his law and order credentials, and drew up to four hundred thousand attendees.

    George Wallace had gained infamy when, in his inaugural address as Governor of Alabama in 1963, he had declared that there would be “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” Wallace’s political origins had begun in the 1958 Alabama gubernatorial election. Running as a Democrat in what was at the time a one-party Democratic state, he had earned a reputation as a moderate by Alabaman standards by supporting racial segregation but opposing the Ku Klux Klan. Losing in the Democratic primary to his overtly racist and pro-Klan opponent, Attorney General of Alabama John Patterson, Wallace vowed to never be “out-niggered” again. In the intervening years, Wallace carefully crafted a reputation as an ardent opponent of desegregation, and mixed the issue in with a right-populist brew of opposition to communists, liberal eggheads, stuck-up federal bureaucrats, sanctimonious Washington judges, and black provocateurs out to destroy the Southern way of life. Although campaigning focused almost entirely on social issues, Wallace also included a moderate economic course of low taxes, fiscal responsibility, and make-work projects. With nearly the exact same percentage of the vote that Patterson had gotten in 1958, Wallace defeated his more moderate opponent in the Democratic primary, and went on to win in the general election with ninety-six percent of the vote. Once governor, Wallace engaged in a series of grand-standing confrontations with the federal government as it tried to enforce desegregation, most infamously in his ‘Stand in the Schoolhouse Door,’ where he physically put himself between the University of Alabama and two new black students attempting to register, with their entry ultimately being enforced through an executive order by President Kennedy.

    As 1964 approached, Wallace began to prepare for a primary challenge against Kennedy, beginning a nationwide speaking tour where he praised states’ rights and local governance, and denouncing what he called federal overreach. Wallace believed that as a Southern right-populist, he would be the perfect foil to the liberal Catholic President. Ignoring the obvious implications of advocating for states’ rights at a time when many states where doing everything in their power to interfere with federal civil rights legislation and court rulings, Wallace denied that he was racist, or had ever intentionally appealed to racism to boost his political career. Instead, he blamed racial unrest on corrupt politicians and communist activists ‘tricking’ the black population of the South with “false promises of a utopia,” and that, “The Negro has not received any ill-treatment in the South.” To anyone familiar with segregation, Wallace was obviously lying. As Governor, he had organized brutal crackdowns of civil rights demonstrators by using the Alabama Highway Patrol, run by his henchman Albert J. Lingo, as his own security force. Additionally, through a quid pro quo network of extremist supporters in the Ku Klux Klan and National States’ Rights Party, he had a handful of radicals willing to engage in terrorist attacks on his behalf [6].

    Throughout 1964, Wallace preyed on ingrained racial fears amongst America’s white populous. He frequently and falsely claimed that the Civil Rights Act would result in the government seizing white suburban homes to give to black people, and would give black citizens special legal treatment over anyone else. Even after President Kennedy was assassinated, Wallace decided to go through with his primary challenge against the new President Johnson. Putting up a rhetorical smokescreen, Wallace would dodge the most controversial or pointed questions sent his way with a disarming joke, and would always couch his language in the terms of small government rather than in the rhetoric of overt racism. Running against a trio of favourite sons, Wallace would ultimately get around thirty-three percent of the vote in the Wisconsin primary, slightly under thirty percent in the Indiana primary, and forty-three percent in the Maryland primary. Wallace exceeded all expectations of his chances in the Midwest, and won an outright majority of white voters in Maryland. Wallace’s core demographic outside of the South had been white lower middle class suburban voters, who were typically first or second generation Americans. Being from the lower income suburbs closest to urban centres with high black populations, the ‘Wallace vote’ had been those white voters who most directly felt the growing prosperity of the black community, as they began to move into the same lower middle class suburbs as them. The Wallace vote’s economic anxiety became inseparable from their inherently racist beliefs that black neighbours would threaten their jobs, lower their property values, increase crime, and decrease the quality of local schools.

    Running under the banner of the American Independent Party, Wallace had returned in 1968, and enjoyed enough support nationwide to appear on the ballot in all fifty states. Sticking to the performance that he had been refining for nine years, Wallace distanced himself from overt segregationism, and relied more and more on dog whistle racism. Running a robust 'law and order' campaign in which he vilified student protestors, anti-war activists, and black Power advocates as a gang of communists and criminals given protection by a godless, overly-permissive federal government. 'Vote for George Wallace,' he seemed to say, 'and the government will finally look after the little guy, the responsible citizen, and do away with all the kooks and crazies.' Similarly sticking to bread and butter economic issues, Wallace promised lower taxes and smaller government. On Vietnam, he was simultaneously the most dovish and hawkish of the three major candidates, as he promised to give the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff complete control of the war effort, and if they could not win in sixty days, he would have America unilaterally withdraw. Wallace's base remained largely confined to rural and lower middle class voters, but with a nationwide audience and social anxiety at an all time high, he garnered massive support from unionized workers in the Midwest, and reached nearly twenty percent in the polls, and threatened to deadlock the Electoral College, preventing any clear winner [7].

    George Wallace Shaking Hands.jpg

    "Stand Up For America." George Wallace shakes hands at a rally. Preying on social and racial anxiety, Wallace led a potent, populist campaign in 1968.

    It was in this tumultuous political environment that the McCarthy campaign found itself adrift. McCarthy held to the same positions he always had, and waited for the electorate to come to him. He continued to refuse to make any serious campaign decisions, and remained reliant on his staff and state volunteers to prepare events for him. He continued to advocate for a negotiated settlement in Vietnam that would include a complete bombing halt and democratic elections in which the National Liberation Front would be allowed to participate. On the economy, his chief proposals remained a universal basic income proposal, and the implementation of the findings of the Kerner Commission, which called for a dramatic increase in social security and welfare spending. McCarthy did not avoid his policy positions, but his natural inclination to meandering and philosophical speeches obfuscated the issues, as he focused on the nature of America and its institutions. McCarthy called for a more limited role for the president, a restoration of America's societal-moral fabric, and a calm, reflective analysis of the issues facing the country. None of McCarthy's policy proposals were particular popular, but his own popularity did not seem to be tied to theirs; a majority of Americans held a positive opinion of him, he was especially liked by independents, and had significant Republican crossover appeal. Ironically, during the Democratic primaries, he had performed weakest among Democrats, who consistently preferred Kennedy or Humphrey to him. His strongest demographic, the suburban middle class, had, in large part during the primaries, been Republican and independent cross-over voters.

    With McCarthy's quixotic appeal, his chances of victory would be entirely determined by turnout. The greatest battle between Nixon and McCarthy would be over the suburban middle class, with the traditional Democratic demographics on the periphery. If McCarthy failed to rally the traditional Democratic demographics and trigger a large turnout, it would undermine his percentages enough that his popularity with the middle class would be irrelevant. Alternatively, the same result could have been reached if Nixon had made any concerted effort to win over voters in the traditionally Democratic demographics.

    McCarthy Crowd.jpg

    "Let Us Begin Anew." McCarthy greets a packed arena in the Midwest. The final outcome of the Election of 1968 would be determined by McCarthy's ability to effect turnout.

    As September arrived and with the election less than two months away, McCarthy's base began to slowly coalesce, all while his campaign continued to coast on well organized state volunteers. The Democratic National Committee, once the puppet of President Johnson, no longer had the energy or resources to resist their own presidential candidate, no matter how much distaste there was for him; the organization had been left in deep debt and on a shoestring budget during the Johnson years. In fact, the weakness of the DNC and the state parties that Johnson had caused by consolidated the party's resources in the White House was a major contributor with the surprising effectiveness of McCarthy's challenge. Philip Hoff, as the new DNC Chair, was shocked to discover that office staff was being laid off to cut costs in the middle of an election. No advertising department existed, and there was literally no money in their spending account. Circumventing McCarthy's national headquarters for its own good, Hoff began the arduous process of sorting through the dozens of bank accounts that McCarthy's campaign had been using, where millions of dollars sat unused. Ecstatic with McCarthy's nomination, the Wall Street Stevensonians collectively donated hundred of thousands more, and a glut of oil money poured in from Texas: McCarthy's longstanding support for the oil industry was finally reaping its rewards, and was multiplied by Connally presence on the ticket, having served for years as a lobbyist for Texas' oil tycoons. Small dollar donations also began pouring in from the suburban middle class. The millions of dollars raised or rediscovered in early to mid-September was not enough to sustain the entire campaign, but presented a much-needed windfall to the DNC. Under Hoff's direction, the lay-offs were reversed, an advertising agency was put on retainer, and McCarthy's general campaigning expenses and television appearances were paid for [8].

    McCarthy also had the luxury of being adored by the press, with it being difficult to find a single negative word printed about him. Arthur Schlesinger Jr, the famed 'court historian' of the Kennedy Administration, remarked, “They didn't know McCarthy, but they were suddenly seized by the notion that here was this man, a poet himself, a friend of poets, that had the courage to lift the banner of opposition to the war. He was a romantic figure and suddenly came out of nowhere, and everyone could find in him their vision of what the country needed.” Humphrey's personal physician, Edgar Berman, added, “Humphrey... watched with mounting amazement as line by line, drink by drink, the press consensus built that poetic Irishman's myth.” McCarthy's calm, deliberate style came off incredibly well on television, and was the optimal method for him to communicate his ideas to the public without the demagoguery of having to convince them face-to-face. The right-leaning press found him equally hard to hate, with McCarthy's conservative style being positively compared to such Republican stalwarts as Calvin Coolidge and Robert Taft. Even the archconservative himself, Barry Goldwater, admired him, and admitted that if a Democrat had to win in 1968, he was glad it was going to be McCarthy.

    However, despite this, the party remained fractured throughout September. In the aftermath of McCarthy's nomination, the only states with state Democratic leadership devoutly committed to him were California, Oregon, and Wisconsin. There were many states where McCarthy had a polling lead, but where the anti-McCarthy sentiment in the state leadership called the ultimate turnout and results into question, such as in Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey. There were still more states where beleaguered McCarthy volunteers had to pick up the slack from completely unsupportive state party and union leadership, such as in Ohio and Michigan. The only major unions that had quickly come around to support McCarthy had been the United Automobile Workers (UAW) and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters [9]. The biggest and most powerful union in the United States, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), remained aloof. George Meany, the President of the AFL-CIO, was a supporter of President Johnson and the Vietnam War, and was reluctant to support McCarthy [10]. Even with Humphrey on his side and pleading his case to Meany and the AFL-CIO leadership, union support remained elusive for McCarthy for the rest of the month.

    Meanwhile, President Johnson was trying to save his legacy. Johnson's gradual escalation of the Vietnam War during his presidency was in large part because of his insistence that he would not be the first president to lose a war, as well as misleading, overly-optimistic reports from the military. With only two months until his transformation into a lame duck president was complete, Johnson was determined to negotiate an end to the war on his own terms. While Johnson's pro-administration plank had been the more hawkish of the two at the Democratic National Convention, the President was genuinely trying to negotiate an end to the war as quickly as possible. Johnson had believed that a bombing halt would endanger American soldiers and prolong the war, as it would allow the North Vietnamese to marshal their resources without any pressure. He had believed that the bombing of military and urban civilian targets in North Vietnam was the peace position, as it would beat the North Vietnamese into submission and force them into an agreement sooner. Such were the absurdities of geopolitics that a significant escalation of bombing was, in its own way, considered an offer of goodwill. However, in the same March speech in which he had declared he would not seek a second term, Johnson had also declared he would halt most of the bombing of North Vietnam, but only under the expectation that the enemy would make a similar move toward peace. During the summer, he was informed by Soviet leadership that they were encouraging the North Vietnamese to reach an agreement. By September, as the rainy season began to arrive in Southeast Asia, the President was informed that bomber accuracy would approach nil, and that a complete bombing halt could be put in place starting in October without compromising the safety of American troops. But, at the same time, Johnson began surreptitiously offering advice and support to Nixon, who he believed was closer to his foreign policy view than McCarthy, and who he felt would be a more responsible negotiator as president. Likewise, Johnson forbade anyone in the cabinet or executive office from helping McCarthy in any way.

    In the meantime, Nixon was getting nervous. In several essential swing states, namely California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Oregon, McCarthy had a lead in statewide polling, despite trailing behind Nixon nationwide, and it was beginning to look like a possibility that the election might be deadlocked after all. With that in mind, Nixon doubled down on his strategy of portraying himself in a better light. A large part of his campaign had been around creating a “New Nixon.” A mature man of reconcialition, even-handedness, coolness, and confidence. This image was designed to bury the reputation of the “Old Nixon,” who was remembered as surly, hostile, and slavishly committed to (Joe) McCarthyism. As part of the New Nixon, many campaign decisions were made with the failures of 1960 particularly in mind: the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate made him look bad, so debates would be avoided; in 1960 he had looked by on television, so radio advertising was prioritized; in 1960 he had overworked himself, so he took at least two days off a week; in 1960 he had made too many decision himself, so he delegated nearly everything to his advisors; and in 1960 he had been too inaccessible, so he went out of his way to cater to the press. Believing his downfall to be a poor media portrayal in 1960, Nixon revolutionized how politics were portrayed to the public, under the auspices of his media advisor, Roger Ailes. The fixation on radio and television portrayals went so far that Nixon's advisor, H.R. Haldeman, recommended eliminating all personal appearances. Although they did not go to that excess, Nixon spent more time in front of a microphone or camera than any other presidential candidate in history, with the goal of creating at least one newsworthy soundbite a day. In an attempt to “capture and capsule” spontaneity, Ailes developed a new method of presenting a candidate. Nixon was put on a circular stage, enveloped by an audience who fielded questions for up to ten hours at a time. The audiences were pre-selected but the questions were not screened, and Nixon's best answers were cut together into commercials and television and radio spots that portrayed him as a relaxed, super-informed elder statesman. Both the circular 'arena' shape and the editing of the footage was designed to subliminally make voters sympathetic to Nixon. Rather than try and appeal to voters with reason or policy issues, Nixon wanted an emotional impression to be what was remembered. Nixon's best speeches from the primaries were also recycled and re-released in print and on radio as targeted advertising. However, by the nature of its own efficiency, the campaign began trapped in the political centre, in a presentation that was, as Nixon's speechwriter Pat Buchanan put it, “programmed, repetitious and boring.” Unwilling to deviate from the plan of assembling a coalition of the Republican base plus suburbia to win, Nixon's advisors who he had delegated most campaign decisions to, cancelled meetings with unions, on campuses, and in ghettos, fearing that presenting Nixon in an uncontrolled environment in front of an unsympathetic demographic might lead to some sort of confrontation or gaffe that would ruin the New Nixon image. Likewise, Nixon was hesitant to take a clear, hawkish position on the Vietnam War or be especially critical of McCarthy, as Johnson was privately insisting, as he feared that it would alienate the suburban swing voters who would be the key to the election. Rather than discuss policy, Nixon talked more of his personal philosophy on the nature of the presidency. When policy did emerge, it was in general terms of law and order, and peace with honour, rather than a thorough analysis of a problem facing the nation. The press, quickly tiring of Nixon's repetitive stump speeches, began to write more and more on his lack of substance rather than anything he was actually saying.

    Unlike Nixon, who had an almost too well organized campaign, or Wallace, who tended to improvise but always had an idea of what he was doing, McCarthy's campaign stayed true to its character as a ramshackle crusade across the nation. In spite of this, it seemed to be working. In a year where social anxiety and a sense of powerlessness was stronger than ever, many voters were paying closer attention to personalities than policies, who McCarthy, who was once described as, “the very antithesis of social turbulence,” was a comforting presence. He was doing notably well in the Upper South. Drawing larger crowds than either Nixon or Wallace in Virginia [11], many assumed that McCarthy was some sort of conservative, with his talk of the constitutional limits of the presidency and the importance of citizen participation within the political process. Ironically, Wallace's talk of small government and states' rights as a racial dog whistle also benefited McCarthy to an extent, as many took McCarthy as someone who would not strenuously push for desegregation, when, in fact, he had been doing so his entire career.

    Lyndon Johnson Sad.jpg

    "The Year of a Continuous Nightmare." Lyndon Johnson desperately tried to redefine his legacy in the latter days of his presidency.

    As October arrived, greater attention was paid to the three vice presidential candidates.

    To say that John Connally was mistrusted by McCarthy's staff was an understatement, and the two running mates barely appeared together. Despite this, Connally was an asset to the ticket, at least in the South. Staying below the Mason-Dixon Line for nearly the entire campaign, Connally gave a further conservative spin to McCarthy's conservative style. Having been a fierce hawk on Vietnam for years, Connally began to ignore the topic as much as possible, and when confronted with it, dismissed any concerns by stating he was bound by the peace plank passed at the convention, and quickly changing the topic [12]. On touchy subjects like busing desegregation, Connally would dodge the question by referring to McCarthy's belief in constitutional limits, knowing full well that McCarthy was entirely supportive of busing desegregation. Connally also remained quiet on economic issues for the most part, where his fiscal conservatism only agreed with McCarthy when it came to lowering taxes. Too slick and experienced a politician to get caught in a gaffe or controversy, Connally caused no great harm to the ticket, and was an effective campaigner in the South [13].

    At the same time, Spiro Agnew caused all sorts of problems for the Republicans. Nixon remembered his poor treatment during his time as vice president under Eisenhower, and insisted that Agnew be given respect and significant autonomy by the campaign team. This began to backfire, as the politically inexperienced Agnew – having served less than one term as the governor of his home state of Maryland – staggered from one gaffe to the next. Too blunt for his own good, Agnew referred to Polish-American voters by the derogatory term “polacks,” described a Japanese-American reporter as “the fat Jap,” and claimed that, “if you've seen one slum you've seen them all.” His effectiveness as Nixon's attack dog was also called into question, when he was lambasted by the press for comparing McCarthy to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, a leading proponent of appeasing the Nazis. Agnew's knowledge of his opponent's policies was also mocked, when he dismissed the Democrat's housing policy as unworkable, then proposed a nearly identical policy of a public-private partnership that would build affordable suburban housing for black people otherwise financially trapped in the ghetto. Unwilling to take advice from Nixon's policy team, and with Nixon unwilling to reign him in, Agnew staggered through the campaign. Despite this, he was especially popular among conservative voters for his law and order campaigning, and 'tell it like it is' attitude.

    As for Wallace, he had yet to officially pick a running mate. Wallace's friend, the former Governor of Georgia Marvin Griffin, had been used as a stand-in in states where a running mate was required to appear on the ballot, but Griffin had barely campaigned, and spent most of his time fishing. Wallace and his team began searching for a replacement running mate, with one of the first choices being Ezra Taft Benson. Benson had been the Secretary of Agriculture under the Eisenhower Administration, and was enthusiastic about the idea of joining the ticket. However, he was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, one of the governing bodies of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (more commonly known as the LDS Church). The President of the LDS, David McKay, forbade Benson from appearing on a ticket with Wallace, for fear it would be a public relations fiasco for the Church. Wallace's next choice was Albert 'Happy' Chandler, the former Governor of Kentucky. Having been in a state of semi-retirement for nearly a decade, Chandler was excited with the idea of being on a presidential ticket, and was willing to become Wallace's running mate. Wallace was unsure, as Chandler had supported integration of the Major Baseball League during his time as the Commissioner of Baseball, and had supported the desegregation of schools in Kentucky shortly before he left office. But, it was these very facts that made Chandler a respectable figure to Wallace's staff, with one aide remarking, “We have all of the nuts in the country; we could get some decent people – you working one side of the street and he working the other side.” Wallace acquiesced, and leaked Chandler's selection. However, shortly after, an uproar emerged among Wallace's supporters. His state chairman in Kentucky complained that Chandler was, “an out-an-out integrationist” and resigned in protest. The Wallace electors of Kentucky and three other states also threatened to resign, which would have removed Wallace's name from the ballot in the four states. Wallace's biggest donor, the oil tycoon Nelson Bunker Hunt, also phoned to voice his displeasure. Wallace ultimately sent his aides to inform Chandler that he would have to be removed from the ticket. A third choice, former Air Force Chief of Staff Curtis LeMay was rejected as being too hawkish, when the presence of McCarthy as the Democratic nominee made it clear that the public was turning against the war [14]. With every single sitting member of Congress refusing to serve as his running mate, Wallace eventually approached Colonel Sanders, of Kentucky Fried Chicken fame, to see if he would join the ticket. Appealing to Sanders' pride as a Southern gentleman, and by insisting he was not racist (as well as setting aside a one million dollar trust fund for him), Wallace convinced the Colonel to run [15]. Although having no political experience and being treated as a joke by the press, Colonel Sanders' enthusiastic support for the American Dream added a positive spin to an otherwise very angry political movement. However, Sanders caused some problems for Wallace as well, as he quickly lost his temper under intense questioning, and had a tendency to rate the physical attractiveness of women while they were still in earshot. Ultimately, Colonel Sanders' down-home brand of Kentucky Fried Politics did not particularly help or harm Wallace's efforts.

    Colonel Sanders.jpg

    Kentucky Fried Politics. Colonel Harland Sanders, the famous fast food mogul, served as George Wallace's running mate in the Election of 1968.

    As the election came ever closer, the most reluctant key components of the New Deal Coalition finally began falling behind McCarthy. Despite his lukewarm relationship with the black community, civil rights leaders admitted that McCarthy's plans to improve conditions for black Americans were the fastest to help if implemented. Touring congregations across the country, Ralph Abernathy, Martin Luther King Jr.'s successor as President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, remarked that neither candidate was particularly good, but that black people should vote for McCarthy anyway, as, “tricky, slicky Dicky” would be a disaster for black America [16]. A firm endorsement for McCarthy by Coretta Scott King also helped, as did campaigning by Ted Kennedy on McCarthy's behalf in ghetto communities. While McCarthy had never been at risk of losing a majority of the black vote, these combined factors guarenteed a level of support consistent with past elections.

    As for the leadership of the AFL-CIO, they had ultimately realized that they were more afraid of Nixon than McCarthy. While Nixon never had any great support among unionized workers, Wallace did; in several polls of unionized workplaces, Wallace came out on top [17], and it was believed that a big enough Wallace vote would skew the results toward Nixon. After over a month of delay, the AFL-CIO finally formally endorsed McCarthy [18]. As one member of the AFL-CIO's Committee on Political Education (COPE) remarked, “Don't let anybody kid you that there's a new Nixon. Nixon's the same union-hater he's always been.” Holding positions from as far back as the 1940s against him, the union leadership convinced itself that a Nixon Administration would, among other things, destroy collective bargaining and abolish the National Labor Relations Board. In a media blitz, the AFL-CIO and its subsidiaries sent out enough anti-Wallace pamphlets for every unionized workplace in America. The contents described his anti-union positions, his support for right-to-work laws, and the low wages and benefits in Alabama. However, despite this late-coming support for McCarthy, the unions did not extent their efforts to down ballot doves, who often had to defeat union-endorsed candidates in the Democratic primaries in order to win.

    By late October, McCarthy had passed Nixon in the nationwide polls. Despite the lackadaisical pace of his campaign and the shallow support of many of the state parties, the sheer quantity of his volunteers did most of the work for him, carrying a candidate who was close to dead weight at times. And, after entering the lead for the first time, many state parties participated in a last minute surge of support for McCarthy, for fear that they would be deprived of any favours if he were actually able to pull it off without them. Wallace's support began to diverge, as, in the Midwest, union voters were returning to McCarthy, while in the South, he was holding on to more of his vote; those who might have otherwise voted for Nixon in order to stop an overtly liberal Democrat from getting elected were simply not as afraid of McCarthy as they would have been afraid of Humphrey or a Kennedy. At the same time, Johnson's declaration of a bombing halt to save his own reputation and try and negotiate a peace arrived just in time to give McCarthy a coincidental last minute boost. Nixon, terrified of the possibility of yet another narrow presidential defeat, hatched a plot to prevent a last minute ceasefire in Vietnam. To that end, he recruited Anna Chennault, a Chinese-American anti-communist lobyist, to get in contact with South Vietnamese Ambassador Bùi Diễm. Working at least in part through Agnew, who would receive information from Chennault, Nixon encouraged Bùi Diễm and South Vietnam's president and dictator, Nguyễn Văn Thiệu, to hold out on the negotiations, with the expectation that they would get a much better deal if Nixon were president. Tipped off by a New York businessman, Johnson ordered the South Vietnamese embassy and Nguyễn Văn Thiệu's office wiretapped, had Chennault put under surveillance, and had the FBI track the phone calls coming out of Agnew's office. Confronting the Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, Johnson accused Nixon of treason by violating the Logan Act, which forbade private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments, and threatened to reveal the information to the public. In a phone call with Johnson on November 3rd, Nixon denied the accusations. Johnson, still believing that Nixon would be a better president than McCarthy, and, lacking any direct evidence of Nixon's involvement, did not push further, and withheld the information from the public [19].

    The election finally arrived on November 5th, after one of the most tumultuous years in American history. Nixon spent his last day hosting a telethon, where he took questions live for four hours. McCarthy held a televised rally in Madison Square Garden in New York City, where a litany of celebrities, poets, and politicians praised his candidacy, with the event taking on more and more of the characteristics of a poetry slam as it went on. Wallace, for his part, returned home to watch the results come in from Alabama.

    Many expected it to be one of the closest elections in American history, and the early results seemed to agree. The swing state of Kentucky was too close to call, and much of the Midwest tallied votes for long periods of time before declaring a winner. But, as the counting went on long into the night, it became clear that Nixon's plan had backfired. Relying too much on his own inoffensiveness and the suburban vote, he had been defeated in both categories by McCarthy, who was more popular in personality polls, and with the suburban population. Having failed to cultivate any sort of effort to steal away votes from traditional Democratic demographics, Nixon was buried in the Electoral College, despite the fact that he was within a few narrow percentages in the popular vote. In the South, Wallace had taken the lion's share of the states, and vote splitting between Wallace and Nixon had thrown several border states to McCarthy. It had developed into one of the most surprising upsets in American history, much like most political events McCarthy participated in.

    Thus, the long odyssey of Eugene McCarthy was over, from a hopeless challenge against the incumbent president, to a brutal drawn-out battle in the primaries, to a seemingly impossible effort to attain the Democratic nomination, and, finally, to the highest office in the land; an office that he both barely wanted, and had craved for his entire political career.

    As for George Wallace, he had failed to deadlock the Electoral College, but he still had a strong base of support to launch future presidential bids.

    And, in their desire to put forward a candidate who could be all things to all people, the Republican Party forgot that Richard Nixon was a loser.

    Wikibox 1968.png


    [1] ITTL, the final day of violence in Chicago was averted, including an incident where the Chicago police broke into McCarthy’s campaign headquarters and began beating up his staff, reportedly in retaliation against McCarthy staffers throwing objects from the office windows. There are conflicting reports on if McCarthy’s staff actually did begin throwing things from the windows: there are third party accounts from New Left protestors that confirm that at least some McCarthy staffers came into the streets to join the protests after their candidate lost the nomination. However, several McCarthy staffers agreed that the windows to their offices were sealed, so they could not have thrown anything, but they also agree that some things were being thrown from the roof of the building. There are conflicting reports on if the debris being thrown from the roof were being thrown by McCarthy staffers, New Left protestors, or by a Chicago police false flag operation.

    [2] Just as in IOTL, McCarthy has dropped five percent in polls following the Democratic National Convention. This is still much better than Humphrey’s sixteen-point drop. While McCarthy’s reputation was still negatively affected by the convention, it was not nearly to the same extent as Humphrey; both ITTL and IOTL, the news media turned against Daley, and by extension Humphrey, due to their rough treatment by the police and convention security. Because of this, a lot of the coverage tended to skew toward McCarthy being portrayed as the ‘good guy,’ leaving his personal reputation relatively intact.

    [3] According to Humphrey, before the convention, both he and McCarthy came to an agreement that they would endorse the other if he won, though McCarthy made Humphrey aware that he would not be able to endorse him until at least mid-September. IOTL, McCarthy was so angered by the mistreatment of his staff and the rejection of the peace plank that he refused to endorse Humphrey until late October. ITTL, Humphrey has upheld his side of the bargain, and endorsed McCarthy shortly after his nomination.

    [4] Governor of Vermont Philip H. Hoff is McCarthy’s choice for Chair of the DNC ITTL. An anti-war liberal Democrat, Hoff is not running for another term, and will be able to devote all his energies to the chairship. IOTL, Humphrey selected Fred Harris as the new Chair.

    [5] While Nixon’s support probably gave Reagan some credibility in the 1966 California gubernatorial election, with the unpopularity of the incumbent Democratic governor, Pat Brown, Reagan probably could have won without Nixon’s help.

    [6] Through his far right connections, Wallace was at least partially responsible for the infamous 16th Street Baptist Church Bombing. Using Albert Lingo as his proxy, Wallace encouraged J.B. Stoner, the leader of the National States’ Rights Party (NSRP), to cause a disturbance big enough that Wallace would have an excuse to declare school integration too dangerous to implement. Stoner and the NSRP went on to hold various rallies and pickets against desegregation, and threatened to kill pro-desegregation officials. Meanwhile, at the same time that Wallace was warning state officials that communist civil rights radicals would try and blow up a black community centre as a false flag operation, Robert Chambliss, a Klan member infamous for using dynamite to blow up the homes of black families moving into white neighbourhoods, and who frequently attended NSRP meetings, began preparations to blow up the black 16th Street Baptist Church. The bombing would ultimately kill four black children: Addie Mae Collins, Cynthia Wesley, Carole Robertson, and Denise McNair. Lingo, likely working under Wallace’s orders, then arrested the bombers for the misdemeanor crime of “illegal possession of dynamite” before there was any significant evidence to convict them for the murders. Eventually, after a few months, the FBI had assembled enough evidence to prove the bombers guilty, but J. Edgar Hoover called off the investigation to avoid the embarrassment of admitting that Chambliss was a long-time FBI informant. Chambliss was eventually convicted in 1977, and died in prison in 1985. Of the three other bombers, Bobby Cherry and Thomas Blanton Jr. were convicted in 2002 (Cherry died in prison in 2004, Blanton died in prison in 2020), while Herman Cash died in 1994, having never any prison time.

    [7] It was unclear what Wallace’s ultimate goal was in the Election of 1968. Even in his most optimistic internal projections, his electoral ceiling was one hundred and seventy-seven electoral votes (winning Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia), which was not enough to win the presidency, but was enough to guarantee a deadlock in the Electoral College. When at the height of his polling, Wallace planned to refuse to release any of his electoral votes, and force the election into the House of Representatives, where Humphrey would have likely won, and where he could reaffirm his position as the only clear opponent of liberals presidential administrations for a future electoral confrontation. When he dipped in the polls and his margin looked weaker, Wallace began considering making a deal with Nixon to prevent Humphrey from getting in.

    [8] Financially speaking, McCarthy was much better off than Humphrey at this point in the campaign. IOTL, all the large donors who might otherwise supported Humphrey had already spent millions of dollars, and were not willing to donate more to someone who was not their first choice. Likewise, the Texas oil money that had come in like clockwork for the Democratic Party each election year dried up for Humphrey, who had no particular appeal to conservative millionaires from the South. Humphrey did not receive any significant donations at all until he gave his September 30th speech in Salt Lake City, where he finally broke from administration plank that he had supported at the convention, and in which declared he would be willing to call for a unilateral bombing halt as, “an acceptable risk for peace.” Only after this break from the Johnson Administration did he start raising money in any noticeable capacity, including two hundred and fifty-thousand dollars in small dollar donations from the same kind of anti-war middle class voters that McCarthy had from the beginning. IOTL, it took Humphrey until October 10th to raise over a million dollars. ITTL, McCarthy had easily surpassed that number over a month earlier.

    [9] The Teamsters, motivated entirely out of spite against Bobby Kennedy, was the only major union to support McCarthy during the Democratic primaries. The notoriously corrupt president of the Teamsters, Jimmy Hoffa, had a longtime rivalry with Kennedy, that originated when Kennedy, in his capacity as Attorney General, launched several criminal investigations against Hoffa. During the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, a mysterious man known only as “Mr. Johnson” was sent to help out McCarthy. This Johnson, an expert in phone surveillance, checked all of McCarthy's phones for wire tapping, and did security sweeps of his staff's offices. It is unknown if he found anything. A common joke among McCarthy's staff was that Mr. Johnson was the most honest man in world, because he had been arrested hundreds of times but never convicted.

    [10] Humphrey, always a close friend of the unions, received their wholehearted support from the leadership of the unions from start to finish in his presidential campaign.

    [11] This is not an exaggeration or ahistorical addition. McCarthy actually did draw larger crowds in Virginia than any other candidate in 1968.

    [12] Connally was so hawkish that he had privately advised Johnson to nuke North Vietnam, but that was not the kind of thing he would reveal on the campaign trail.

    [13] IOTL, Humphrey's running mate, Edmund Muskie, was extremely popular on the campaign trail, and was easily the most well-liked of the three vice presidential candidates.

    [14] IOTL, Wallace chose LeMay as his running mate, something he would come to regret after LeMay, in his first appearance with Wallace, went on a rant about how the country had a, “phobia about nuclear weapons.” Claiming, “I've seen a film of Bikini Atoll after twenty nuclear tests, and the fish are all back in the lagoons, the coconut trees are growing coconuts, the guava bushes have fruit on them, the birds are back... the rats are bigger, fatter, and healthier than they ever were before.” Widely reported in the press, LeMay's remarks horrified Wallace, and his rapid drop in the polls in October was at least partially due to LeMay attempt to vindicate the use of nuclear weapons.

    [15] Colonel Sanders actually was under consideration as a possible running mate by Wallace. The trust fund set up ITTL for the Colonel was created for LeMay IOTL.

    [16] Abernathy said the same thing about Nixon and Humphrey IOTL.

    [17] In one poll from a General Motors plant in New Jersey, Wallace won over seventy percent of the vote. While no nationwide polls were done, at his height, Wallace had the loyalty of about a third of unionized workers.

    [18] Humphrey had the full support of the unions from the start, and their support was instrumental in picking up the slack from his lack of DNC funds.

    [19] The same course of events happened IOTL, but played out slightly differently. IOTL, Johnson informed Humphrey, but both believed that the evidence was circumstantial, and would ruin the integrity of the presidency if the information was leaked and Nixon was elected anyway. ITTL, Johnson has a similar line of reasoning, but does not bother to tell McCarthy about it.
     
    Last edited:
    The 1968 Presidential Election Results Breakdown and Down-Ballot
  • The 1968 Presidential Election Results Breakdown and Down-Ballot

    Presidential Election Results
    1595698889919.png

    Eugene McCarthy/John Connally - Democratic - EV 345
    Richard Nixon/Spiro Agnew - Republican - EV 128 (minus one faithless elector from North Carolina)
    George Wallace/Harland Sanders - American Independent - EV 64 (plus one faithless elector from North Carolina)

    Richard Nixon's campaign strategy was almost perfectly designed to lose to Eugene McCarthy. Building his candidacy around being as inoffensive as possible, Nixon hoped to carry the election on the support of the suburban middle class, and general distaste for the incumbent Democratic administration, while at the same time conceding traditional Democratic demographics without any particular effort to try and win them over. It is worth noting that this strategy was nearly identical to Thomas Dewey's in 1948, where he famously lost in President Truman's upset victory. The reason that Nixon won with the same strategy that Dewey lost with is because the suburban middle class dramatically expanded in size between 1948 and 1968, and, even then, Nixon's victory was incredibly narrow. The reason this strategy was especially weak to McCarthy was that it relied entirely on the suburban middle class to carry the day, and that was McCarthy single strongest demographic. McCarthy had a twelve point lead over Nixon with middle class suburban voters on the low end, and on the high end of polling had an astounding twenty point lead in a traditionally Republican demographic. IOTL, outside of the South, the only demographics that Nixon won were high income urban voters (sixty-three percent to Humphrey's twenty-nine percent to Wallace's five percent), middle income urban voters (forty-four percent to Humphrey's close forty-three percent, to Wallace's thirteen percent), and rural voters of all income (forty-six percent to Humphrey's thirty-three percent to Wallace's twenty-one percent). Taking this data into account, the suburban middle class vote ITTL's election using the low point of McCarthy's suburban middle class polling, would have been around fifty-six percent for McCarthy, thirty-three percent for Nixon, and eleven percent for Wallace, in an election that was decided by this very demographic. Likewise, by ignoring traditional Democratic demographics, Nixon was ignoring McCarthy's weakest demographics, who could have been convinced to vote for a Republican in the highest numbers in decades, which could have made up the difference in McCarthy's suburban strength. Having made in-depth plans since 1966 to finally become president, both IOTL and ITTL, Nixon seemed incapable of dramatically changing tactics as he would have had to to beat McCarthy. Similarly, Nixon would have been unable to take a strongly hawkish position to challenge McCarthy without isolating the suburban middle class voters he was relying on to win.

    McCarthy also had significant cross over appeal from potential Wallace voters. Wallace was the second choice of sixteen percent of McCarthy's voters in the Democratic primaries, which accounted for around five hundred thousand Wallace votes, mostly in the Midwest, during the general election. When most of these McCarthy-to-Wallace voters were asked why they would make such a dramatic ideological shift, most of them cited emotional rather than policy reasons for supporting the candidates; when asked why they supported McCarthy, many cited his personal traits, such as 'bravery' or 'honesty,' and felt that Wallace best embodied these traits after McCarthy. However, like IOTL, Wallace did not change the outcome of the election. ITTL, Wallace carried Tennessee and South Carolina not because of anything he was doing himself, but because Southern conservative voters were not afraid of McCarthy like they were of Humphrey. Nixon's anti-Wallace effort in the South was based around generally agreeing with Wallace but claiming that a vote for Wallace was a wasted vote that risked Humphrey winning. This argument is less potent with McCarthy as the Democratic nominee. To give you an idea of right wing voters not being afraid of McCarthy, around an eighth of McCarthy's small dollar donations came from self-identified Barry Goldwater voters. Because of this lack of fear, several states that would have otherwise gone for Nixon went to McCarthy, with more conservatives being willing to vote for Wallace. The McCarthy states that Wallace cost Nixon ITTL were Missouri, Kentucky, Alaska, and Texas.

    If Wallace had not been a candidate ITTL's election, the results would have looked something like this:

    1595700682619.png

    Eugene McCarthy/John Connally - Democratic - EV 296
    Richard Nixon/Spiro Agnew - Republican - EV 242


    In the end, even without Wallace, McCarthy's broad suburban support and large personal following in several key states would carry the day. These pro-McCarthy key states were determined by the pollster John Kraft, when comparing McCarthy's percentages to Nixon's around the time of the Democratic National Convention. Compared to Nixon, McCarthy had a twenty point lead in Oregon, a seventeen point lead in Illinois, a fifteen point lead in California, a five point lead in New York, and a lead in New Jersey (with the exact number unknown), at the nadir of the Democratic Party, and when Humphrey was losing in all of those states. Of those states, Humphrey would ultimately only win in New York.

    As for unionized voters, one might argue that McCarthy received too much support from them ITTL to be plausible, considering the complete lack of support they gave George McGovern in 1972. However, it was a recurring theme in McCarthy's career that he would defeat a primary or convention opponent backed by the unions, they would give him the cold shoulder, and then they eventually came around and supported him. Now, granted, McCarthy's presidential challenge was much more controversial than winning a Senate primary, but the AFL-CIO's ability to sway its own membership was smaller than one might think anyway. In a poll of AFL-CIO workers done by Public Opinion Surveys, Inc. in 1968, only twenty percent of respondents said they "almost always" supported the candidate endorsed by the union, and only half were able to correctly identify who the AFL-CIO had endorsed (Humphrey). Fifty-four percent of respondents said they only "sometimes" supported the candidate endorsed by the union, and a majority of all polled said that lower taxes were their number one concern. Considering that most of these unionized workers also fit into the suburban middle class demographic and McCarthy was promising lower taxes, even without the active support of the AFL-CIO it would seem he would have been able to win a clear majority of unionized workers, though likely to a lesser extent than Humphrey did. In fact, the AFL-CIO's effort for Humphrey was gargantuan, and they claimed to have spent tens of millions of dollar and registered four and a half million new voters on his behalf. ITTL, the AFL-CIO ultimately decided to support McCarthy, but assuming they did nothing to help, and organized union support for McCarthy was limited to the United Automobile Workers and the Teamsters, McCarthy could have feasibly lost Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Alaska, but he still would have narrowly won the election:

    1595704995831.png

    Eugene McCarthy/John Connally - Democratic - EV 275
    Richard Nixon/Spiro Agnew - Republican - EV 199 (minus one faithless elector from North Carolina)
    George Wallace/Harland Sanders - American Independent - EV 64 (plus one faithless elector from North Carolina)


    Given all of these considerations, I conclude that in the very, very unlikely prospect that McCarthy gained the Democratic nomination, as this TL explores, it would have been nearly impossible for him to lose to Nixon unless he somehow managed to completely ostracize his suburban middle class base and the emotionally-driven McCarthy-to-Wallace voters. In fact, McCarthy's election would have been very much in spite of himself, as he was a very lackadaisical campaigner, and his popularity was mostly self-perpetuating through his supporters and through his almost universally positive media coverage. If McCarthy had (completely uncharacteristically) campaigned hard, encouraged Nixon/Wallace vote splitting in the South, and went out of his way to cultivate both traditionally Democratic and traditionally Republican demographics, he could have attained a victory similar to the following:

    1595705832378.png

    Eugene McCarthy/John Connally - Democratic - EV 380
    Richard Nixon/Spiro Agnew - Republican - EV 102 (minus one faithless elector from North Carolina)
    George Wallace/Harland Sanders - American Independent - EV 56 (plus one faithless elector from North Carolina)


    Now, all this is not to say that McCarthy would have been unbeatable if he had been the Democratic nominee. Much in the same way that Richard Nixon was vulnerable to McCarthy's strengths and ignorant to his weaknesses, the opposite was true of Nelson Rockefeller. Rockefeller was a candidate who did go out of his way to try and win over black and unionized voters, had a greater popularity among the suburban middle class than Nixon (but still lost to McCarthy in that demographic), was a dynamic campaigner, and frequently polled as the most popular presidential contender for the Republicans. Also, practically all of the Democratic Party's leadership would have preferred to lose to Rockefeller than win with McCarthy, and there would have been a mutiny similar to the one that faced Goldwater in 1964 amongst moderate Republicans. Ironically, in a McCarthy v. Rockefeller v. Wallace race, McCarthy would have been the main beneficiary of Southern voters trying to stop Rockefeller from becoming president by not voting for Wallace, which would lead to a bizarre election akin to the following:

    1595707682938.png

    Nelson Rockefeller/Robert Griffin - Republican - EV 293
    Eugene McCarthy/John Connally - Democratic - EV 206
    George Wallace/Harland Sanders - American Independent - EV 39

    Down-Ballot: The House
    Speaker of the House: John William McCormack
    House Democrats: Carl Albert - 257 Seats - 9 Seats Gained
    House Republicans: Gerald Ford - 187 - 9 Seats Lost


    The elections in the House of Representatives were largely inconclusive. Despite Republicans hoping for massive gains in the Midatlantic and Midwest, no significant movement was made toward either party. However, the Democrats did surprisingly make mild gains, usually in districts where McCarthy was particularly popular. The following are some notable House races:

    California 29: George Brown Jr. narrowly won re-election, after completely tying his political hopes and aspirations to the President-elect. Brown is perhaps the most personally loyal congressman to McCarthy.

    Connecticut 4: Located in a suburban swing district, the incumbent Donald Irwin barely defeated his Republican challenger, Lowell Weicker.

    New Hampshire 2: David C. Hoeh, the co-leader of McCarthy's efforts in New Hampshire, was absolutely trounced by the incumbent Republican, James Colgate Cleveland.

    New York 5: In a narrow victory, Allard Lowenstein, the mastermind of the Dump Johnson movement, was elected to the House. Now considered a political prophet, Lowenstein still remains estranged from McCarthy after their early disagreements on how he should have run in the Democratic primaries.

    New York 12: A freshly created district, New York 12 has elected Shirley Chisolm, the first black woman in congressional history. She handily defeated James Farmer, a leader of the Civil Rights Movement who ran on a Liberal-Republican fusion ticket.

    New York 17: Making his way into office thanks to a third party Conservative bid splitting the Republican vote, Democrat Ed Koch ran as "just a plain liberal" who supported international and domestic human rights and opposed the Vietnam War. While not as outwardly supportive of him as others, Koch is generally considered to be a McCarthy Democrat.

    New York 27: In something of an upset, John G. Dow managed to squeak his way into re-election thanks to McCarthy's popularity in New York. An early critic of the Vietnam War, Dow was a delegate at the Democratic National Convention and cast his vote for McCarthy.

    Down-Ballot: The Senate
    1595710967744.png


    President Pro Tempore: Carl Hayden
    Senate Democrats: Mike Mansfield - 61 Seats - Lost 2

    Senate Republicans: Everett Dirksen - 39 Seats - Gained 2


    With many pundits were expecting significant Republicans gains in the Senate, the results were similarly inconclusive as those in the House. Despite the Republican technically making gains, they lost both their Minority Leader and Minority Whip in a devastating display for their Senate leadership.

    Alabama: The retiring J. Lister Hill is succeeded by fellow Democrat James Allen, an ally of George Wallace.

    Alaska: Incumbent pro-McCarthy Senator Ernest Gruening was defeated in the Democratic primary by Mike Gravel, a further left McCarthy supporter who portrayed himself in the primaries as a hawkish moderate. Gruening launched a write-in campaign with strong support from McCarthy, resulting in a split Democratic vote and a victory for conservative Republican Elmer Rasmuson.

    Arizona: In a fight for the seat of retiring President Pro Tempore Carl Hayden,
    Barry Goldwater is easily elected after having left office to campaign for president in 1964.

    Arkansas: The dovish Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
    J. William Fulbright, is easily re-elected, despite his endorsement of McCarthy, and the state voting for Wallace on the presidential level.

    California: The incumbent moderate Republican Thomas Kuchel, who also served as Senate Minority Whip, was defeated in a primary challenge by the conservative Max Rafferty. McCarthy ally
    Alan Cranston narrowly defeated Rafferty in the general election.

    Colorado: The incumbent conservative Republican
    Peter Dominick is easily re-elected.

    Connecticut: Despite opposition from the Connecticut Democratic Party, McCarthy ally
    Abraham Ribicoff is re-elected, remarking, "They need me more than I need them."

    Florida: With the incumbent George Smathers retiring, the Republican challenger
    Edward Gurney successfully used racebaiting to defeat his more moderate opponent, former Governor LeRoy Collins. Gurney's victory represent's Florida's gradual drift to the Republican Party.

    Georgia: Senator
    Herman Talmadge is re-elected in a landslide. Entering his third term, it was the first time he did not run unopposed. Talmadge and McCarthy have a notable mutual distaste for each other.

    Hawaii: The keynote speaker of the Democratic National Convention,
    Daniel Inouye, is re-elected in a landslide.

    Idaho: Dovish and liberal Democrat
    Frank Church wins re-election by emphasizing his experience in the Senate. The ambitious Church regrets not accepting Lowenstein's offer to dump Johnson more than anyone else. Church's son, Forrest, is friends with Michael McCarthy, the son of the President-elect.

    Illinois: In an upset victory, Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen is defeated by his Democratic challenger, William Clark. Clark was one of the principle authors of the peace plank at the Democratic National Convention, and benefited from McCarthy's notable popularity in the state. Dirksen's defeat is a disaster for Senate Republicans, as it leaves both the position of Minority Leader and Minority Whip vacant in the coming congressional session.

    Indiana: The incumbent McCarthy-skeptic Democrat Birch Bayh narrowly defeats his Republican challenger, William Ruckleshaus. Bayh supported Bobby Kennedy in the Indiana primary.


    Iowa: Governor Harold Hughes, who nominated McCarthy at the Democratic National Convention, is narrowly elected himself to the Senate.

    Kansas: The retiring Frank Carlson, a favourite son candidate at the Republican National Convention, is easily succeeded by fellow Republican Bob Dole.

    Kentucky: In another upset, Katherine Peden, is narrowly elected as the new Senator for Kentucky. Peden was the only woman on the Kerner Commission which wrote the Kerner Report, the centerpiece of McCarthy's domestic policy. Despite not being particularly close to the President-elect, Peden benefited from higher-than-usual turnout from suburban areas that also threw him the state.

    Louisiana: The son of the infamous Huey Long and the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, Russell Long wins re-election unopposed.

    Maryland: Running the kind of campaign that Nixon did not, the liberal Republican Charles Mathias sought out traditional Democratic demographics among black and unionized voters to defeat the Democratic incumbent, Daniel Brewster. Also present was George Mahoney, running as the gubernatorial candidate for Wallace's American Independent Party. Mahoney had previously run as governor as a segregationist Democrat, but had been defeated by Spiro Agnew, who is returning to the governor's mansion.

    Missouri: Succeeding the retiring Democratic incumbent Edward Long, the young McCarthy supporter Thomas Eagleton narrowly defeated his Republican challenger, Thomas Curtis.

    Nevada: Democrat Alan Bible wins re-election by a surprisingly close margin.

    New Hampshire: Republican Norris Cotton easily defeats his Democratic challenger, Governor John King. King, one of the leaders of President Johnson's campaign in the New Hampshire primary, was deprived of support from McCarthy Democrats in the state.

    New York: Despite the best efforts of McCarthy, his protege, Paul O'Dwyer, is defeated by the popular incumbent liberal Republican Jacob Javits. James Buckley also appeared on the ballot as the candidate of the third party Conservatives.

    North Carolina: Sam Ervin easily brushes aside his Republican challenger to win re-election.

    North Dakota: Old school conservative Republican Milton Young returns to the Senate once again.

    Ohio: In a close-fought race, McCarthy Democrat John Gilligan narrowly defeats his opponent, the moderate William Saxbe. Gilligan's victory is attributed to McCarthy's coattails, and the reluctant support of the unions after they had opposed his nomination in the Democratic primaries.

    Oklahoma: The old liberal Stevensonian Mike Monroney is defeated for a fourth term by Henry Bellmon, despite an appearance by McCarthy.

    Oregon: One of two Senators to oppose the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Democrat Wayne Morse is re-elected to the Senate by a sliver due to McCarthy's huge popularity. The election was no such much about the Vietnam War as it was about Morse's drifting political allegiances, having started as a Republican, then having left the party to caucus as an independent, then eventually joining the Democratic Party, only to later endorse Republican Mark Hatfield for Oregon's other Senate seat.

    Pennsylvania: Despite McCarthy's best efforts, leading dove Joseph Clark is narrowly defeated by his Republican challenger, Richard Schweiker, who was mostly critical of Clark's support for gun control.

    South Carolina: Conservative Democrat Ernest 'Fritz' Hollings is easily elected to his first full term.

    South Dakota: Liberal stalwart George McGovern is re-elected fairly easily despite expecting a tough challenge. McGovern had been the one to suggest McCarthy to the Dump Johnson movement, and now at least partially regrets it.

    Utah: Monetary expert and conservative Republican Wallace Bennett is narrowly re-elected.

    Vermont: Elected as a liberal Republican during the Franklin Roosevelt Administration, George Aikin is elected to his sixth term unopposed.

    Washington: The Humphrey-supporting senior Democrat Warren Magnuson wins yet another term.

    Wisconsin: Dovish Democrat and environmental champion Gaylord Nelson wins re-election.

    Down-Ballot: The Gubernatorial Races
    1595809645269.png

    National Governors' Association Chair: Buford Ellington
    Republican Governors' Association: Ronald Reagan - 27 Governorships - Gained 1
    Democratic Governors' Association: Robert McNair - 23 Governorships - Lost 1


    With the presidency, and both houses of Congress under the control of the Democrats, the only area where Republicans held a majority were the various governorships of the United States. Like the congressional elections, the year's gubernatorial elections were characterized by the minimal changes made by voters.

    Arizona: The one-eyed, low profile Governor of Arizona, Jack Williams, won re-election in a re-match against his former opponent, Democrat Samuel Pearson Goddard Jr.

    Arkansas: In an alliance of Republicans and liberal Democrats, Winthrop Rockefeller, the brother of fellow governor Nelson Rockefeller, narrowly won re-election. Rockefeller defeated Democrat Marion Crank, an ally of the segregationist former governor Orval Faubus.

    Delaware: Democrat Charles L. Terry Jr., famous both for his anti-corruption measures and his frequent use of the national guard to quell protests and riots, won re-election by the skin of his teeth in what was supposed to be a Republican sweep in Delaware.

    Illinois: In a bizarre alliance of McCarthy suburbanites and the Daley Chicago political machine, Samuel Shapiro wins the governorship in his own right after having served as Lieutenant Governor when the previous governor, Otto Kerner, resigned to serve on the Kerner Commission which bore his name.

    Indiana: Republican Edgar Whitcomb was elected, defeating Robert Rock, who came from a rival political faction within the Indiana Democratic Party than the incumbent governor, Roger Branigin, who had run in the 1968 Indiana Democratic primary.

    Iowa: Taking advantage of the popular governor Harold Hughes running for Senate, moderate Republican Robert Ray defeated his Democratic opponent fairly easily.

    Kansas: Championing farmers and small business, incumbent Democrat Robert Docking was narrowly re-elected.

    Missouri: Incumbent Democratic liberal Warren Hearnes won re-election by a decisive margin, with his Lieutenant Governor, Thomas Eagleton, going to the Senate.

    Montana: Elected as the first Democrat in twenty years, Forrest H. Anderson defeated the Republican incumbent, Tim Babcock.

    New Hampshire: With the incumbent governor, John King, not running for re-election, Republican Walter Peterson Jr. eked out a narrow victory.

    New Mexico: In a nail-biter election, Democrat Fabian Chavez Jr. just managed to defeat the incumbent liberal Republican, David Cargo. Chavez had been a Kennedy supporter, and rallied enough support from the state's McCarthy supporters, led by Sterling Black, to win out in the end.

    North Carolina: Democratic Governor Dan Moore, a favourite son candidate at the Democratic National Convention, was succeeded by his Lieutenant Governor, Robert Scott.

    North Dakota: The incumbent governor William Guy, of the North Dakota Democratic-Nonpartisan League Party, won re-election in large part due to his ability to encourage large federal projects to come to the state.

    Rhode Island: In a close election, Democrat Frank Licht defeated incumbent John Chafee in an upset after Chafee called for the introduction of an income tax after railing against one for years.

    South Dakota: Despite the best efforts of George McGovern to cultivate the Democratic Party in his state, Republican Frank Farrar easily won election.

    Texas: Fending off a liberal primary challenge by Don Yarbourough, John Connally's ally, Preston Smith, won the Democratic nomination and the governorship.

    Utah: Incumbent Democrat Cal Rampton easily won re-election.

    Vermont: Retiring governor Philip Hoff had become the Chair of the Democratic National Committee but had become unpopular in his home state due to his liberal stances. He was succeeded by Republican Deane Davis.

    Washington: Liberal Republican Daniel Evans won re-election, despite refusing to endorsing Richard Nixon and standing by Nelson Rockefeller following the Republican National Convention.

    West Virginia: In one of the closest gubernatorial elections of the year, Democratic judge James Marshall Sprouse narrowly defeated his Republican challenger, Arch A. Moore Jr.

    Wisconsin: Despite a spirited effort by McCarthy ally Bronson La Follette, incumbent governor Warren Knowles won re-election.
     
    Last edited:
    The McCarthy Cabinet and Executive Office
  • The McCarthy Cabinet and Executive Office

    Cabinet 1969-1971.png

    The Cabinet
    President Eugene McCarthy (MN, Liberal Democrat, Dove)
    Against all odds, Eugene McCarthy had been elected President of the United States, and became the unparalleled idol of the anti-war movement in the process. With his 'New Politics' brand, McCarthy captured the key constituency of the suburban middle class, who bolstered his lower-than-average results with traditional Democratic demographics. Ideologically speaking, McCarthy was hard to pin down: his voting record in Congress indicated he was a typical liberal New Deal Democrat, his mannerisms and devotion to the Constitution indicated he was some kind of conservative, but his fervent belief in Catholic Social Gospel and his open calls for wealth redistribution put him on the fringe left of the Democratic Party. While the extent of his domestic ambitions remained in question, what was clear was that McCarthy intended to embark on a thorough restructuring of American foreign policy, starting by negotiating an end to the Vietnam War as soon as possible.

    Vice President John Connally (TX, Conservative Democrat, Hawk)
    Ironically, John Connally advocated for McCarthy to be selected for the vice presidency in 1964, and now, through slick political maneuvering, Lyndon Johnson's former protégé has attained the vice presidency himself. Reaching a last minute agreement with his campaign at the Democratic National Convention, Connally swung the South to McCarthy, providing his only feasible path to the nomination. In exchange, Connally was given the vice presidency, and a say over cabinet and judicial appointments. While beloved in his native Texas, many are ambivalent of Connally, as he served for years as a backroom lobbyist for the oil industry, and always seemed to pop up on the periphery of numerous scandals. Politically, Connally is a fiscal conservative and a moderate on social issues, having willingly desegregated Texas while governor, if only to avoid federal involvement. Previously one of the most hawkish Democrats in the nation, Connally now reluctantly follows the dovish party line. His presidential ambitions have become increasingly transparent over the years.

    Secretary of State J. William Fulbright (AR, Conservative Democrat, Dove)
    Up until his appointment as Secretary of State, J. William Fulbright had served as the Senator for Arkansas, and the Chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. One of the most outspoken critics of the Vietnam War, Fulbright was McCarthy's foreign policy mentor, and McCarthy's experiences on the Foreign Relations Committee shaped his opinion against the war. Fulbright is a strong believer in international cooperation and détente with the Soviet Union, but has proven a controversial choice for his longstanding support for segregation. When questioned about it, McCarthy would deflect by referring to his own robust civil rights record. Fulbright has been succeeded as Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee by Senator John Sparkman of Alabama, who is similarly skeptical of foreign adventurism. His Senate seat has been filled by Len E. Blaylock, an ally of Arkansas' moderate Republican governor, Winthrop Rockefeller.

    Secretary of Treasury John Kenneth Galbraith (MA, Liberal Democrat, Dove)
    A famous Post-Keynesian economist, John Kenneth Galbraith has served in every Democratic administration since Franklin Roosevelt. A founding member of Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), Galbraith had initially been reluctant when Allard Lowenstein approached the organization in attempt to align them to the Dump Johnson effort. However, soon after, Galbraith advised McCarthy to run for president, and became an economic advisor for his campaign. Galbraith had been willing to run against Johnson himself, until he learned that his Canadian birth disqualified him. Serving as a member of the Massachusetts delegation at the Democratic National Convention, Galbraith also seconded McCarthy's nomination at the convention. As Secretary of Treasury, Galbraith's main concerns were restructuring America's finances following the Vietnam War, addressing rising inflation, and dealing with McCarthy's penchant to pore over insignificant details of the tax code in order to slightly adjust them.

    Secretary of Defense James M. Gavin (NY, Liberal Independent, Dov)
    "Jumpin' Jim" Gavin was once again called into service for his country. A lieutenant general during the Second World War, Gavin was famous for making combat jumps alongside the paratroopers under his command, and worked to desegregate the army. A prominent critic of the Vietnam War, his 'Gavin Plan' is the cornerstone of McCarthy's Vietnam policy; search and destroy missions were to be abandoned, and American troops were to instead consolidate in fortified urban centres while a ceasefire was negotiated. Gavin believes that the existence of Mutually Assured Destruction has made nearly all conventional weapons obsolete, and that a better measure of success during the Cold War would be through analyzing social factors, such as the standard of living. He proposed a powerful anti-ballistic missile program as a military alternative. Gavin had been approached to run against Johnson himself, but declined to do so, instead endorsing Nelson Rockefeller during the Republican primaries, and McCarthy in the general election. Gavin intended to retire once the Vietnam War was resolved.

    Attorney General David Ginsburg (NY, Liberal Democrat, Dove)
    A founding member of Americans for Democratic Action, David Ginsburg is perhaps the most well-established figure of liberal politics in America who has never held elected office. Along with being an ADA founder, Ginsburg also had an early start in political lobbying in his efforts to get President Truman to recognize the nascent state of Israel. Ginsburg had also served as the executive director of the Kerner Commission, which determined that the main causes of black rioting were institutional racism and a lack of economic opportunity. The findings of the Kerner Commission were a cornerstone of McCarthy's domestic policy, and even though Ginsburg supported Humphrey at the Democratic National Convention, his anti-war credentials were enough to take him on as attorney general. From there, Ginsburg had to find away to implement the legal aspects of the very report he had overseen.

    Postmaster General William E. Carlson (MN, Liberal Democrat, Dove)
    If Eugene McCarthy's entire career had been one step behind Hubert Humphrey's, then William Carlson's entire career had been one step behind Eugene McCarthy's. Carlson had a respectable but unexceptional sting in Minnesota's House of Representatives, and ran and lost against then-Senator Edward Thye in 1952. Carlson had known McCarthy while they were both teaching in post-secondary education, and the two had each rooted for the others' political career. Expecting to be the go-to Senate candidate in 1958, Carlson was blindsided when McCarthy entered the race and went on to narrowly beat Thye in the general election. Since then, Carlson had served in a variety of minor state positions in Minnesota. Carlson had been McCarthy's choice to fill his Senate seat, but Minnesota's governor chose his fellow Republican, Clark MacGregor. As a sort of consolation prize, Carlson was selected for the position of Postmaster General.

    Secretary of the Interior Ernest Gruening (AK, Liberal Democrat, Dove)
    Along with Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon, Ernest Gruening was the only other member of Congress to vote against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, earning himself a place as a hero of the anti-war movement. However, his maverick behaviour was unpopular back home in Alaska, and he was defeated in a primary challenge for his re-election by Mike Gravel, a further left Democrat who presented himself as further right while contrasting his youth against the elderly Gruening. With McCarthy's encouragement, Gruening ran as a write-in candidate, with Gruening's strong showing splitting the Democratic vote and throwing the election to the Republican, Elmer Rasmuson. Despite this, Gruening had been scooped up by the McCarthy Administration and placed in charge of the Department of the Interior. Gruening is considered one of America's foremost specialists on Mexican history.

    Secretary of Agriculture William R. Poage (TX, Conservative Democrat, Hawk)
    Having previously served as the Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, William R. Poage is one of Connally's cabinet picks. Poage's nomination served as a simultaneous assertion of Texan power in the administration, and a snub toward the Chairman of Senate Agriculture Committee, Herman Talmadge of Georgia, who had a mutual antipathy with McCarthy. Poage was a typical Southern Democrat in terms of policy, but when it came agriculture, he was a stalwart supporter of subsidies and price controls to help protect American farmers and agribusiness. In his role as Secretary of Agriculture, Poage was expected to work closely with McCarthy's soft power plans to use mass food exports as foreign aide to help stabilize Third World countries, in exchange for loyalty, or at least goodwill, in the Cold War.

    Secretary of Commerce Frank Ikard (TX, Conservative Democrat, Hawk)
    One of McCarthy's closest friends from Texas along with Homer Thornberry, Frank Ikard was a former member of the House of Representatives. After leaving politics, Ikard entered the fossil fuel industry in 1960 as an executive of the American Petroleum Institute. Disappointed that McCarthy would run against the President, Ikard sided with Johnson during the early Democratic primaries, but ultimately came to support McCarthy after the events of the Democratic National Convention. His past association with McCarthy along with the deal with Connally earned him a cabinet position as Secretary of Commerce. Ikard has warned that if changes are not made to the oil and gas industry that it could start to effect the Earth's climate by the year 2000, and has called for investigating alternative methods of fueling America.

    Secretary of Labor Hubert Humphrey (MN, Liberal Democrat, Hawk)
    In something of a demotion, former Vice President Hubert Humphrey has temporarily accepted the position of Secretary of Labor. Humphrey had been willing to put the past behind him, and campaigned hard for McCarthy after losing the nomination. Humphrey's enthusiastic support went a long way in rallying the AFL-CIO and other skeptical labour unions to McCarthy and minimizing defections to George Wallace. Despite McCarthy delighting in finally having seniority over his longtime colleague, the latest arrangement of their love-hate relationship will not last long, as Humphrey intends to return to the Senate in the 1970 midterm elections.

    Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Daniel Patrick Moynihan (NY, Moderate Democrat, Realist)
    One of three members of ADA in the cabinet, Daniel Patrick Moynihan was one of those who voted in favour of the organization endorsing McCarthy for the Democratic nomination, as served as a domestic advisor afterwards. While an opponent of the Vietnam War, Moynihan was equally critical of the New Left, which he saw as a gang of riotous hoodlums, particularly the anti-war and Black Power movements. Moynihan looked to reform the welfare state through a guaranteed annual income (also known as a universal basic income), and planned to implement McCarthy's version of it in the form of the Adequate Income Act.

    Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Joseph S. Clark Jr. (PN, Liberal Democrat, Dove)
    Like Gruening, Joseph S. Clark Jr. lost his seat in the Senate during the 1968 elections, with his Republican challenger, Richard Schweiker, effectively using Clark's support for gun control and his opposition to the Vietnam War against him. Besides his time as the Senator for Pennsylvania, Clark is most well known for being the Mayor of Philadelphia, where he was famous for his anti-corruption initiatives, and low income housing projects. Clark served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee along with McCarthy and Fulbright, where he was an active critic of the Vietnam War even before McCarthy. Clark's chief responsibility as Secretary of Housing will be to implement McCarthy's ambitious plans to build low income housing in suburban areas as a way of quickly ending the de facto segregation of the ghettos.

    Secretary of Transportation J. Howard Marshall (TX, Conservative Independent, Hawk)
    A Texas oilman and longtime associate of McCarthy's, J. Howard Marshall is the embodiment of the new President's close ties to the oil industry. The two men first became acquainted when they were introduced to each other by Ikard and Thornberry upon McCarthy's entry into the House of Representatives. With McCarthy's help, Marshall was able to expedite the construction of the Pine Bend Refinery, and its pipelines that ran through McCarthy's district. Now, Marshall's expertise in fuel transportation and logistics are being put to use as Secretary of Transportation. McCarthy himself argues that his seemingly close relationship with the oil industry is not as significant as it seems; he claims that his votes in the Senate to continue tax exemptions for the oil industry were cast because he knew that the repeal would fail anyway.

    Ambassador to the United Nations Chester Bowles (CN, Liberal Democrat, Dove)
    A foreign policy advisor to Jack Kennedy and Adlai Stevenson before him, Chester Bowles was a founding member of ADA. During his time in the Kennedy Administration, he was eventually sidelined to more and more fringe positions for being too left wing, but now he had been selected as the new United States Ambassador to the United Nations. An opponent of the Vietnam War, Bowles had been one of those ADA members who was an early supporter of McCarthy's candidacy, and is a proponent of cooperation with the Third World and neutral countries. Following the decline in American prestige with the Vietnam War, Bowles hoped to rebuild bridges with the international community.

    The Executive Office
    First Lady Abigail McCarthy (MN, Liberal Democrat, Dove)
    Although initially reluctant to have her husband run for President, Abigail McCarthy turned out to be an excellent organizer of Catholic and women's groups. Rallying volunteers, particularly in New Hampshire and Wisconsin, Abigail was a proactive member of the early campaign. However, her husband's staff considered her an overly-controlling political amateur, and when she took a break from the campaign for health reasons during the Indiana primary, there was very little room for her when she came back. Despite living in the same White House, Gene and Abigail are essentially estranged from each other, and pursue their own separate political and family activities.

    Chief of Staff Tom Finney (CA, Liberal Democrat, Realist)
    A former CIA agent, a Californian political lobbyist, and the campaign coordinator from the Oregon primary onward, no one is quite sure how Tom Finney and Gene McCarthy first met. Finney's intervention to add some professionalism to McCarthy's flagging campaign most likely saved it from collapse. Under Finney's watch, the campaign saw a nearly unbroken chain of victories in Oregon, California, New Jersey, and Illinois (only losing South Dakota), and had come on permanently as Chief of Staff. Finney had temporarily left the campaign during the summer of 1968 to mourn the death of his father, but came back in time to help run the general election effort. While highly respected by McCarthy's cabinet, Finney is loathed by most of McCarthy's staff, who consider him an interloper who led the campaign astray from its original grassroots idealism. Despite this, he is the only person holding McCarthy's ad hoc political operation together. Finney had an ongoing rivalry with the President's personal aide, Jerry Eller.

    National Security Advisor George Kennan (WI, Independent Conservative, Realist)
    The mastermind of the policy of Containment, George Kennan had been directly or indirectly responsible for most of America's geopolitical strategy since the beginning of the Cold War. In 1966, Kennan came before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to denounce the Vietnam War as having misconstrued his ideas, and announced he believed that Containment was no longer necessary to deal with the Soviet Union. Kennan now believed that limited cooperation was possible with communism, especially if McCarthy took advantage of the widening gap between the Soviets and the Chinese. Domestically, Kennan is a reactionary vehemently opposed to the New Left and the counterculture movement. He had floated the idea of having secret police round up protesters to have them tried in special political courts, and also voiced approval of South African aparthied.

    Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors John T. Connor (MA, Liberal Democrat, Dove)
    Lyndon Johnson's former Secretary of Commerce, John T. Connor resigned in protest of the expansion of the Vietnam War. As the Chair of the Committee of Business Executives Against the Vietnam War, he had supported McCarthy in the primaries. Following McCarthy's election, Connor returned to the executive office as one of the chief economic advisors to the President.

    Chair of the National Aeronautics and Space Council John Connally (TX, Conservative Democrat, Hawk)
    Following the precedent set by Jack Kennedy, the Chair of NASC continued to be the serving Vice President. McCarthy had little to no interest in space exploration, and was content to leave the Apollo program to its own devices for the time being. Once Apollo 11 completed its final preparations for the moon landing, McCarthy intended to dramatically cut the space budget.

    Chair of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board Sam Ervin (NC, Conservative Democrat, Realist)
    Formerly the Senator for North Carolina, Sam Ervin had joined the executive office as the chief intelligence advisor to the President. Ervin is a Southern legal expert, and frequently used constitutional arguments to justify racial segregation. However, Ervin was also an ardent civil libertarian on privacy issues, and was suspiciou of the powers of America's secret agencies, much like McCarthy himself. On the Vietnam War, Ervin supported gradual withdrawal. Early in McCarthy's presidency, the position of Chair of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board was left intentionally vacant so that Ervin could vote on some early legislation to tighten controls on the CIA.

    Director of the Bureau of the Budget Howard Stein (NY, Liberal Independent, Dove)
    Howard Stein was one of the biggest donors to McCarthy's campaign. He served on the campaign's finance committee, and ruled his own fiefdom within the New York campaign, separate from other McCarthy efforts in the state, and where he produced his own commercials for the campaign. Stein was representative of the liberal, philanthropic, nouveau riche support that McCarthy enjoyed. Stein was also the President of the Dreyfus Corporation, which specialized in investments, and masterminded the no load money market fund, which invested in low-risk government debt assets, such as Treasury bills, to strengthen the value of a stock portfolio.

    United States Trade Representative Thomas Finletter (NY, Liberal Democrat, Dove)
    A former member of the Truman Administration and an old Stevenson supporter, Thomas Finletter had been one of the first people to directly approach McCarthy to ask him to challenge Johnson in the 1968 primaries. During the campaign, Finletter served as the representative of the clique of Stevensonian Wall Street bankers who financed large parts of the campaign. Finletter was previously involved in implementing the Marshall Plan through his work in the Economic Cooperation Administration, and is familiar with the world of European financing. It was on that basis that he was chosen as the United States Trade Representative.

    United States Poet Laureate Robert Lowell (MA, Liberal Independent, Dove)
    Previously appointed by Congress and attached to the Library of Congress, McCarthy had uplifted the position of United States Poet Laureate to the executive office, and appointed his close friend Robert Lowell to the position. Lowell was arguably the President’s closest confidante, and provided his own opinions on political matters when the two were not writing poetry together.

    The Military and Intelligence Agencies
    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff David M. Shoup
    A general of the Marine Corps during the Second World War, David M. Shoup was one of the most prominent critics of the Vietnam War during the Johnson Administration.
    Shoup drew controversy for not only criticizing the war, but the entirety of American society for being too militaristic and too indentured to the military-industrial complex. Shoup emphasized combat readiness and budget efficiency, and had come out of retirement to trim the fat of the military budget and redistribute the nation's military resources out of Vietnam.

    Supreme Allied Commander Europe Lauris Norstad
    A former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Lauris Norstad is the first man to reprise the role. Norstad was possibly the most dovish of America's generals to come out against the Vietnam War, believing in a thorough and rapid disengagement. As Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Norstad continued to believe in the policies of his first tenure, namely the superiority of air power, and the necessity of America's European allies to have their own robust defensive capabilities.

    Commander of the U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam Frederick Weyand
    Creighton Abrams, the former leader of military operations in Vietnam, had been quickly and quietly replaced with General Frederick Weyand once McCarthy took office. Weyand had privately voiced skepticism on the chances of winning the Vietnam War, and was chosen on the basis that he would be the most willing to implement the Gavin Plan and facilitate a military withdrawal.

    Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Hale Boggs
    True to his word, President McCarthy had finally removed J. Edgar Hoover from his decades-long role as the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This had been a controversial decision, as Hoover enjoyed broad public approval, and held significant political clout. However, in the privacy of government facilities, he had created an extralegal leviathan that used blackmail, wiretapping, forgery, and even assassination in an effort to protect American from groups he considered to be dangerous subversives. Only very narrowly winning re-election, House Majority Whip Hale Boggs, a critic of the FBI's tendency to operate independently, jumped at the opportunity to head the agency. But, within days of entering the position Boggs suffered from massive internal resistance against what the agency saw as a political appointee, and some of McCarthy's more paranoid advisors thought Hoover would unleash some sort of retribution on the administration.

    Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Thomas McCoy
    McCarthy had long been a thorn in the side of the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Richard Helms. Helms had opposed McCarthy's efforts to create an official CIA oversight committee in the Senate, a motion that failed due to many of McCarthy's colleagues believing that intelligence oversight was a prerogative of the executive office. Now in control of that very same executive office, McCarthy had replaced Helms with Thomas McCoy, one of his campaign advisors, and a former CIA agent who had had a leading role in operations in Southern Europe. Unlike Helms, McCoy was willing to publicly support an oversight committee in Congress, but would balk at the more extreme reforms of the CIA McCarthy had in mind.

    Director of the National Security Agency Matthew Ridgway
    Along with Gavin and Shoup, former general Matthew Ridgway was one of the three most prominent critics of the Vietnam War. Ridgway previously served as the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, and a leading general in America's effort in the Korean War, before being selected by McCarthy as Director of the National Security Agency. Ridgway had been one of the foreign policy "wise men" who advised President Johnson to withdraw from Vietnam, and played a role in turning Johnson's Secretary of Defense, Clark Clifford, against the war. Ridgway's first order of business will be shutter American military intelligence operations in what once was French Indochina, and to determine for McCarthy exactly how much the NSA knew about the Vietnam War that was not being shared with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
     
    Last edited:
    Chapter Six - Fortunate Son
  • Chapter Six - Fortunate Son

    For perhaps the first time in American history, a presidential inauguration doubled as a counterculture celebration.

    Between the night of the election and the inauguration, the anti-war movement reached the nadir of its influence. With public support having dramatically shifted from direct action to electoral politics with McCarthy’s nomination and election, the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam (the Mobe) was facing the possibility of dissolving completely, while its student branch had been completely taken over by the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party (SWP). Plans by the Mobe for a proposed counter-inaugural rally were abandoned, as the vast majority of the membership were not interested in protesting against a president who very clearly aligned with their views [1]. While the thousands of anti-war protestors who attended the inauguration still brought their picket signs and slogans, most of their messaging was positive for a change, and while the protestors grated on President Johnson, President-elect McCarthy took it in stride [2]. While McCarthy’s inauguration did not reach the record-breaking attendance of Johnson’s, there was still sizable turnout. Besides the anti-war protestors, many of those who came were from McCarthy’s most devout followings in suburbia and the college campuses, centred around a small nucleus of the For McCarthy Before New Hampshire (more commonly known as the FMBNW) volunteers. The FMBNWites were identified by a simple custom campaign button, and enjoyed a minor celebrity status as they milled around with the crowd. Among the FMBNWites were the volunteer Ben Stavis, who was already writing a memoir about the campaign, and Sam Brown, McCarthy’s youth coordinator, who once remarked that he believed McCarthy was capable of winning, “sometimes for up to thirty minutes at a stretch.”

    After a call to order and welcoming remarks by Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, an invocation was performed by Reinhold Niebuhr, one of the President-elect's favourite theologians. Following some more prayers and a few musical performances, John Bowden Connally Jr., age fifty-one, was given the vice presidential oath by House Majority Leader Carl Albert. Following another interlude that included a poetry reading by Robert Lowell, Eugene Joseph McCarthy, age fifty-two, was sworn in as the thirty-seventh President of the United States by Chief Justice Earl Warren. With McCarthy as President, Warren was content in the knowledge that following his pending retirement, his successor as Chief Justice would be similarly liberal.

    Former President Johnson, sporting a scowl for most of the event, was at least consoled by the fact that his protégé was vice president. Other prominent attendees were Hubert Humphrey, with a bittersweet smile on his face, and an expressionless Richard Nixon.

    In his inaugural address, McCarthy stuck to his now-expected dry style, emphasizing the reconciliatory power of the democratic process, the necessity of participatory democracy, the importance of de-personalizing political office, the need for a moral revitalization of American society, the obligation to promote social and economic equality, and the necessity of international cooperation, all laden with the historical references and poetic verses his supporters had come to expect. Reaching his key policy points, McCarthy proposed the Four New Civil Rights: a minimum income, healthcare coverage for every American, expanded education and workforce training, and the right to a decent house. Turning to his core issue of Vietnam, McCarthy declared that continued American involvement was not in the national interest. He announced that he would press the South Vietnamese to negotiate whatever terms were necessary for a ceasefire, and if they were unwilling or unable, America would proceed without them.

    Following the inaugural address, the new President and Vice President attended the traditional congressional luncheon. Representing the Senate were Mansfield in his capacity as Majority Leader, as well as Majority Whip Russell Long. After significant vacillation, Ted Kennedy was also invited by McCarthy, but Long’s better seating at the luncheon implied the President was going to either stay neutral or openly back Long in Kennedy’s upcoming challenge for his position as Majority Whip. With both Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and Senate Minority Whip Thomas Kuchel having lost re-election, the Republicans were represented by Republican Conference Chairman Margeret Chase Smith, and Republican Conference Secretary Milton Young. McCarthy’s relationship was much more frigid with the Democrat’s House leadership; the President was openly backing Representative Mo Udall’s leadership challenge against Speaker of the House John William McCormack, and he had not forgiven House Majority Leader Carl Albert for trying to sway the convention results against him in his role as chairman in Chicago. Neither had House Majority Whip Hale Boggs been fully forgiven for championing the pro-administration plank at the convention, but Boggs and McCarthy’s interests were aligned in trying to reign in the FBI. McCarthy’s gaggle of twenty and thirty-something veteran organizers and volunteers, along with Connally’s relatively young clique loyalists he had invited, made it, on average, the youngest inaugural congressional luncheon in American history.

    After the congressional luncheon, the inaugural parade was held. Having decided to not go down and join the protests at the Democratic convention, McCarthy finally granted himself some delayed gratification by – to the delight of the assembled crowd – making the mile and a half trek from his inaugural site at Congress to the White House on foot, along with the new First Lady, Abigail, and the presidential children, Ellen, Mary, Michael, and Margaret, all of whom were teenagers or in their early twenties [3]. Having spent months engrossed in campaigning or with his retinue, McCarthy finally enjoyed some quality time with his kids, as well as with ‘his kids’ in the crowd.


    McCarthy and Humphrey at seating 1968.jpg

    A fine line between love and hate: outgoing Vice President Hubert Humphrey congratulates President-elect Eugene McCarthy at his inauguration. Humphrey would serve as McCarthy's Secretary of Labor in the first two years of his administration.
    After the inaugural festivities, President McCarthy began to assemble his cabinet. With the Vietnam War being his top priority, his closest advisors in the early days of the administration were those related to foreign policy: despite protests regarding his support for segregation, the dovish Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, J. William Fulbright, was chosen as Secretary of State; the new Secretary of Defense was former general James M. Gavin, whose eponymous Gavin Plan was the cornerstone of McCarthy’s Vietnam policy; George Kennan, the mastermind behind America’s Cold War policy of Containment, and more recently a realist critic of American foreign policy and the Vietnam War, was made National Security Advisor; former general David M. Shoup, serving as Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, provided advice more directly related to military matters; former general Lauris Norstad and McCarthy advisor and former CIA agent Thomas McCoy handled the gradual withdrawal of military intelligence from Vietnam in their new roles as Director of the National Security Agency and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency respectively; while W. Averell Harriman and Cyrus Vance continued to serve as America’s chief representatives at the peace negotiations with the various Vietnamese factions, United States Ambassador to the United Nations Chester Bowles tried to resuscitate the nation’s flagging popularity with the international community. Holding this web of delegated authority together was Chief of Staff Tom Finney, who proved himself an indispensable organizer [4].

    Preparing for a new war footing, the McCarthy Administration began the implementation of the Gavin Plan. Search and destroy missions, as well as pacification missions were abandoned completely, effectively ceding the South Vietnamese countryside to the communist National Liberation Front (NLF), and its political arm, the People’s Revolutionary Party (PRP). American forces were consolidated in urban centres and army bases near urban centres, which would force any future attacks to be fought conventionally, where it was hoped that American air superiority and troop concentrations would provide an overwhelming advantage. In the meantime, a ceasefire would be negotiated with the North Vietnamese and the NLF, which would ideally lead to a transitional coalition government, free elections, and a unification referendum.

    While the Gavin Plan was considered overly-optimistic by its critics, and risked giving up vast tracts of territory to the enemy, it turned out to be well suited for the military situation in 1969.


    Averell Harriman, Cyrus Vance, and Nguyen Cao Ky 1968.jpg

    The negotiators: W. Averell Harriman (left) is seen here with his deputy, Cyrus Vance, and South Vietnamese Vice President
    Nguyễn Cao Kỳ at the Paris peace negotiations.

    The North Vietnamese and the NLF had nearly completely expended their military strength in the Tet Offensive. For years, the North Vietnamese strategy had been to only negotiate with the Americans after winning a clear major victory, under the belief they would not receive a deal sufficiently lopsided in their favour for their goals any other way. Suspicious of any treaty with foreign powers after the United States ignored many of the agreements of the 1954 Geneva Accords, the communists aimed to only sign a treaty that would essentially force their enemies to concede defeat upfront. Alternatively, they would abide by a more even treaty only as long as it would be required for the United States to withdraw, then ignore any restraints stipulated, and go forward with whatever political or military operations that would be necessary to reunify the country. The Tet Offensive had been designed to be the kind of clear victory that would result in the former option, but their plans went awry; while the initial offensive crippled Lyndon Johnson’s popularity and indirectly gave a significant boost to McCarthy’s challenge in the New Hampshire primary, it had not succeeded in its actual goal to overrun the South and win outright. Increasingly doubtful of their chances but unwilling to accept defeat, the North Vietnamese Politburo, led de jure by the ailing Hồ Chí Minh but de facto by the more hawkish Lê Duẩn, authorized two more phases to the Tet Offensive, stretching it from its original two month offensive to nearly eight months. Despite this, the Tet Offensive still ultimately failed, and, by some estimates, the communists had made casualties of up to two thirds of their entire armed forces. With their projections indicating their military capabilities would only recover by 1970 at the earliest, Lê Duẩn decided to begin negotiating, but only while intentionally dragging his feet by making excessive and impractical demands in order to delay the process and rebuild the communists' military strength. For his own reasons, Nguyễn Văn Thiệu, the dictatorial president of South Vietnam, also intentionally delayed the proceedings, believing that any negotiated settlement would lead to a communist victory once the Americans left. Another matter of contention was who would be represented at the negotiations, as the Americans had wanted it to be between them and North Vietnam, while the North Vietnamese had wanted it to be between them, the Americans, the South Vietnamese, and the NLF. Because of the intransigence of all parties, most of the negotiations in late 1968 were taken up by the shape of the table they would sit at would be.

    McCarthy’s election was both a blessing and a curse for the North Vietnamese. On the one hand, they were now negotiating with a President who actually agreed with most of their intentionally excessive demands, but on the other hand, because of that, they would have to genuinely start negotiating, or risk losing international support, as well as the support of the Soviet Union, their chief military supplier, who also favoured a negotiated settlement.

    Following the failure of the Tet Offensive and McCarthy’s election, a schism began to emerge within the Worker’s Party of Vietnam (WPV), and the North Vietnamese Politburo as a whole. The ‘left’ faction, also known as the ‘fight-and-negotiate’ faction or the ‘pro-Soviet’ faction, was headed by Lê Duẩn and, to a lesser extent, Lê Đức Thọ, North Vietnam’s chief negotiator in Paris for secret talks. The left adhered to the ongoing strategy of launching massive conventional offensives in order to put pressure on their enemies in order to win outright, or at least negotiate the best possible terms of a ceasefire or treaty. Lê Duẩn wanted to rally their remaining armed forces to launch another series of attacks throughout 1969, and only genuinely begin negotiating once their military had been fully restored. Lê Duẩn’s position was also supported by the majority of the communist military leadership in South Vietnam.

    Opposing Lê Duẩn’s position was the ‘centre’ faction, more commonly known as the ‘protracted struggle’ faction or the ‘pro-Chinese’ faction. Led by the Chairman of the National Assembly of Vietnam and Politburo member Trường Chinh, the centre believed that the massive offensives were ineffective, and that they should prioritize guerrilla action and political takeovers in order to secure the vast amount of territory the Gavin Plan was practically handing to them. They could then use their vast political control in the South to eventually take over a South Vietnamese coalition government and ultimately absorb South Vietnam with minimal loses. Other members of the centre were Vice Chairman of the National Assembly Hoàng Văn Hoan, the famous general Võ Nguyên Giáp, and Xuân Thủy, North Vietnam’s chief negotiator in Paris for public talks [5]. Describing his opponents as having, “an erroneous conception of the transitional nature of the General Offensive and Uprising,” Lê Duẩn’s position was upheld, and the centre faction was sidelined.

    The first offensive of the year began in late February and went until late March in the Mekong Delta region. Early in the year, North Vietnam’s efforts were primarily focused on redistributing troops from the North into offensive positions in the South. Logistics were also improved through the expansion of the Hồ Chí Minh trail, and other routes from North Vietnam into the South through Laos and Cambodia. As for their neighbouring countries, the North Vietnamese continued to support the Panthet Lao communists and their leader, Souphanouvong, in the Laotian Civil War. Nicknamed the Red Prince, Souphanouvong was a cousin of Laos’ King, Sisavang Vatthana, and was the half-brother of the Prime Minister of the enemy Royal Lao Government, Prince Souvanna Phouma. Compared to Laos, the situation in Cambodia was both similar in its factions but strikingly different in its allegiances. In Vietnam’s southwestern neighbour, the dominant political force was the neutralist regime of the former King, Norodom Sihanouk. Following the death of his grandfather in 1941, King Sisowath Monivong, Sihanouk had succeeded him as king, but had abdicated in 1955 so that he could actively participate in politics, leaving his parents as figurehead monarchs. Sihanouk’s political organization, Sangkum Reastr Niyum (commonly known as Sangkum, literally translated as the Community of the Common People, but more commonly translated as the Popular Socialist Community), was a bizarre mix of socialist rhetoric, corporatist-nationalist policies, and a conservative royalist outlook. Acknowledging the fact that Sihanouk was ignoring the Hồ Chí Minh trail and NLF incursions into his eastern borderlands, the international communist community decided that he was ‘socialist enough,’ encouraging Cambodia’s communists to work from within Sangkum. Those radical Khmer Rouge communists who continued to oppose the government, led by Saloth Sâr, were shunned as uncooperative. Despite this, Sihanouk began to put election restrictions on communist representatives in 1966, and used the start of the Samlaut Uprising in 1967 – a peasants’ revolt encouraged by local communists in the northwest and spreading to the northeast in protest of repressive government policies – as an excuse to widen the crackdown. By the time the uprising was crushed in April of 1968, Sihanouk’s authoritarian, militaristic, right wing prime minister, Lon Nol, had gained significant political power, while various prominent Sangkum communists such as Hu Nim, Hou Yuon, and Khieu Samphan, went into hiding and joined up with the Khmer Rouge [6].

    Back in Paris, the North Vietnamese had run out of excuses. With McCarthy’s unilateral and total bombing halt of North Vietnam shortly after his inauguration, he had fulfilled the North Vietnamese’s first and most pressing demand. In return, they had fulfilled their reciprocal promise to halt their shelling of the demilitarized zone, but North Vietnamese and NLF attacks continued within South Vietnam. The North’s many demands of the South – namely that it halt all attacks on the NLF and that its government resign in favour of a coalition government – had delayed the negotiations, until McCarthy decided to ignore the South entirely by promising to support a South Vietnamese coalition government, and assuring the North that he would compel Nguyễn Văn Thiệu to resign or he would cut off American support. McCarthy had also met their demands to begin unilateral withdrawal of American troops from South Vietnam. A second communist offensive starting on May 11th and targeting the cities of Kon Tum and Long Khánh ended in complete disaster when the concentrated American troop presence kept the attackers on the outer limits of the cities, allowing American fighters and bombers to blow them away without concern for friendly fire [7]. Believing that a ceasefire would soon be signed, Mao Zedong and the People’s Republic of China began quickly withdrawing its support troops and redirecting them to northern border skirmishes with the Soviet Union [8]. Losing the international public relations battle for the first time and desperate for a strong showing, Lê Duẩn sent orders to a military conference being held in the Fifth Military Region (on the South Vietnamese side of the demilitarized zone) for extra resources to be allocated for an upcoming dual offensive in late September, to be held in U Minh, the southernmost district of South Vietnam, and in Tây Nguyên, the central highlands region.


    Three Princes.jpg

    Three princes of Southeast Asia. Souphanouvong (left), also known as the Red Prince, led the communist Panthet Lao in Laos. He was locked in a civil war with his half-brother, Souvanna Phouma (right), the Prime Minister of the Royal Lao Government. Norodom Sihanouk (centre) was the prime minister and former king of Cambodia, ruling a big tent authoritarian neutralist regime which ultimately purged its communist members. Despite this, Sihanouk was accepted by the international communist community for his tolerance of the Hồ Chí Minh trail running through his country.
    Meanwhile, across the Pacific Ocean, President McCarthy had been handling continued unrest related to the war, while also implementing his domestic agenda.

    Early in the year, President McCarthy had personally met with the assembled leadership of Clergy and Laity Concerned About Vietnam (CALCAV) to discuss their concerns. The group was warmly received, as CALCAV had been one of the organizations who had most influenced McCarthy’s thinking against the war [9]. Protests continued to be held across the country, but typically by reform or religiously-inclined organizations who supported generally supported President McCarthy, such as Quaker groups, and Women Strike for Peace (WSP). McCarthy, along with Sam Brown, who had been promoted from being his youth coordinator to President of Young Democrat of America, also met with a group of student leaders in the White House to discuss the future of the draft; McCarthy’s winddown of troops in Vietnam effectively ended the draft, but it was still legally in place. McCarthy did not support an end to conscription, and instead had been proposing a system where draftees could apply for selective conscientious objector status to specific wars, and would instead be sent on Peace Corps-esque international development missions (or, hypothetically, to a different war they did not object to) [10].

    However, despite this reconciliatory attitude to moderate anti-war groups, college campus protests and student activism escalated, as did political violence.

    One example of things being resolved peacefully was at the University of Notre Dame. The President of Notre Dame, Theodore Hesburgh, was described as, “the most influential cleric in America, and the only possible rival to Dr. Billy Graham as preacher to the nation.” He had also been appointed by McCarthy as the Chair of the Civil Rights Commission [11]. Hesburgh believed that student militants threatened the very existence of post-secondary education, and was paranoid that a student protest would force him to resign the presidency, much like what had happened to nearly every other prominent university president in the nation. Issuing an open letter to Notre Dame’s students and staff in February of 1969, Hesburgh remarked that he had, “studied at some length the new politics of confrontation” and that anyone who, “substitutes force for rational persuasion, be it violent or non-violent, will be given fifteen minutes of meditation to cease and desist” or else they would be expelled from the school or arrested. While Hesburgh was universally praised by the press, his open letter rankled students, as there had not been any significant protests at Notre Dame, and his popularity plummeted. As a man who put great pride in his popularity with the student body, Hesburgh became increasingly sour, working eighteen-hour days, and often starting conversations by reading his fan mail aloud. Deciding to take a break, Hesburgh went on vacation during the summer, where he pondered his unpopularity and the course of the Vietnam War, in what one close acquaintance described as an existential crisis. Upon his return, he came out stridently against the war, praised President McCarthy for his peace efforts, and began to participate in (sanctioned and organized) student anti-war activities. In a tumultuous sea of student unrest, Notre Dame University and its newly re-popular President remained calm [12].

    The same could not be said of the University of California, Berkeley. Berkeley had been the site of the first major student protests of the 1960s with the Free Speech Movement of 1964-65, the original goal of which was to lift the ban on advocacy of political causes. The university’s administration eventually backed down, leading to the prominence of civil rights and anti-war protests on college campuses. However, the Berkeley student protestors were widely unpopular with the public, and in his first gubernatorial run, Ronald Reagan campaigned in large part on taking a stricter line against students. Berkeley’s unrest hit its fever pitch in 1969 with the People’s Park protests. The People’s Park had originated in 1967, when the university had forced the sale of local housing through imminent domain, and had it bulldozed to make way for future student housing. In the meantime, the land remained empty. It also served a secret double-purpose that the university administrators were clearing out the left wing non-student activists who lived in most of the local housing, and who they believed were inciting the protests on campus. After two years of no development, a handful of student activists began to beautify the empty land to turn it into a public park and ‘free speech zone’ with an implied leftist inclination. Grass was laid, swing sets were put in, and a garden, brick paths, and an amphitheater were all built and maintained by volunteers in less than a month. While the university’s chancellor, Roger W. Hyens, claimed the park was a futile effort considering land development would be starting soon, he also promised not to do anything to the park without prior warning to the students. Seeing an opportunity to fulfill a campaign promise, and believing that Berkeley was, “a haven for communist sympathizers, protesters, and sex deviants,” Governor Reagan went over Heyns’ head, and got the permission of the city’s mayor to deploy the California Highway Patrol and Berkeley police to clear out the park, ostensibly to protect the university’s property rights. As the authorities began tearing up the park in the early morning of May 15th of 1969, an unrelated student rally being the same day quickly became a protest at the park. The police quickly deployed tear gas to disperse the protestors, but there were disagreements on if the police used the tear gas before or after the protestors began throwing trash and debris at them. Under the direction of Reagan’s Chief of Staff, Edwin Meese III, law enforcement was given permission to use whatever methods they chose to disperse the crowd. Covering their badges to avoid being identified, riot police forcibly dispersed the crowd, which by that point had definitely turned violent, using tear gas, nightsticks, and shotguns with lethal rounds, killing one bystander, and hospitalizing one hundred and twenty eight protestors [13]. Reagan declared a state of emergency in Berkeley without the input of the city council, with the national guard being deployed to the city for the next two weeks, with any and all protests being broken up by tear gas. Despite his excessive use of tear gas being criticized by the press and President McCarthy himself, Californians sided with the governor by an overwhelming margin [14]. Reagan stood by his decisions, and later remarked, “It if takes a bloodbath, let’s get it over with, no more appeasement.”

    Despite the ever-so-slightly more sympathetic take in the press toward protestors after the events in Berkeley, student protestors easily remained the single most hated group in the country, and the dying Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) played a large part in the perception.

    Starting as an enthusiastic centre-left student advocacy group, SDS had grown increasingly radical since its founding in 1960. By the late 1960s, it had become riddled with internal strife and factional conflict, with the main cause being an attempted takeover by the Worker Student Alliance (WSA), a front group for the anti-revisionist communist Progressive Labor Party (PLP) [15]. Trying to repel a WSA-PLP coup, the SDS leadership turned to increasingly radical visions of Marxism to try and discredit the PLP as, “phony communists.” This new variation of the SDS, based out of their National Office (NO), began to refer to itself as the Revolutionary Youth Movement (RYM), and was fully known as the NO-RYM. The SDS’ collapse came to a head at its annual convention the Chicago Coliseum in June of 1969. An intensive pat down was mandatory at the door to search for weapons, tools of government agencies, and the devices of the “capitalist press.” Members of the Women’s Liberation Caucus complained that the security team was using the pat down as an excuse to grope female members. Within the Coliseum, the NO-RYM’s political manifesto was circulated, titled “You Don’t Need a Weatherman to Tell Which Way the Wind Blows,” which described the world as being embroiled in a conflict between national liberation movements and American imperialism, with the Black Power movement being at the vanguard of American national liberation. The Weatherman manifesto was especially critical of the WSA and their claim that, “all nationalism is reactionary.” Things continued to escalate when Rufus Walls, a Black Panther Party (BPP) leader, came on stage and declared that the only role for women in the revolutionary struggle was as a sexual reward for male revolutionaries, causing chants of, “Fight male chauvinism!” to break out, before the convention descended into chaos. The next day, another BPP member there, Jewel Cook, announced that the WSA-PLP was deviationist and racist, and that the BPP would only continue to work with the SDS if they were expelled. Taking the stage, NO-RYM leader Bernadine Dohrn declared the WSA-PLP irredeemably racist, and declared that all those truly loyal to the SDS would follow her out of the room. As the NO-RYM faction gathered in the next room over to expel the WSA-PLP, the WSA-PLP claimed they were still in the official convention hall and were still the official meeting, and appointed their loyalists to all the leadership positions of the SDS. By the next day, there were effectively two SDSs, SDS-RYM, and SDS-WSA. The day after the convention ended, SDS-RYM member Michael Klonsky held a press conference to announce that he had personally sent a telegram to Mao Zedong to inform him of the great victory of the SDS-RYM over the WSA-PLP, presumably unaware of the fact that the WSA-PLP had been a Maoist organization. The SDS-RYM dissolved soon after, and a new group, mostly composed of the leadership of the National Office, was reborn as the Weather Underground Organization (WUO, or the Weathermen). Making plans for a riot in Chicago titled the Days of Rage and planning a series of terrorist bombings, the Weathermen entered into a self-perpetuating downward spiral of increasing radicalism, believing that President McCarthy had maliciously co-opted the anti-war movement from its Marxist revolutionary origins, and defanged it by indoctrinating it into America’s inherently racist, authoritarian, and imperialist system. His alliance with John Connally was considered further proof of his true motives as a segregationist reactionary. Planning their lonely battle of national liberation, the Weathermen plotted their coming victory while the rest of the anti-war movement left them behind [16].


    Weathermen Leaders Jim Mellen, Peter Clapp, John Jacobs, Bill Ayers, and Terry Robbins, left ...jpeg

    "You Don't Need A Weatherman to Tell Which Way the Wind Blows." The Weathermen were a radical New Left splinter faction of Students for a Democratic Society, that engaged in a series of riots and bombings beginning in 1969. They were most famous for their 'Days of Rage' riot in Chicago.

    September of 1969 represented an end of an era for Vietnam. After years of declining health and decades as a symbol of Vietnamese independence, Hồ Chí Minh died on September 2nd of heart failure, at the approximate age of seventy-nine. Starting with People's Republic of China, condolences poured in from around the world, from communist and capitalist nations alike, including from Vietnam's former colonial master, France. While outside observers had expected a power struggle after Hồ's death, it was common knowledge to political insiders that Lê Duẩn had already long established his primacy in North Vietnamese politics. An editorial in the North Vietnamese state-controlled media remarked that Hồ had left behind a, “collective leadership body... of his closest comrades-in-arms and most outstanding disciples, around whom the Vietnamese promised to close their ranks.” Taking advantage of Hồ's death, Lê Duẩn declared that unity was paramount in order to fight the war, and was made the head of the official committee organizing Hồ's funeral, which was held on September 6th. The funeral also presented itself as an excellent excuse for Soviet and Chinese dignitaries to meet in order to de-escalate tensions after their various border skirmishes and nuclear sabre rattling. Publicly reading Hồ's will on September 9th, Lê Duẩn conveyed that their old leader encouraged the Vietnamese to fight to the bitter end for national liberation, and expressed his hope that recent disagreements in the international communist movement could be resolved, and that a collective leadership would continue to govern the communist effort in Vietnam.

    Unfortunately for Lê Duẩn, the unity of the collective leadership did not last long. The planned Dual Offensive began on September 26th with an attack on the town of U Minh, in the district of U Minh, as a lead-up to an attack on the city of Cà Mau. The initial communist thrust was led by Commander Lê Đức Anh, with support from political commissar Võ Văn Kiệt, as they led the 1st and 2nd Regiments, along with various local guerrilla cells. Lê Đức Anh forced the 21st and 9th Infantry Divisions of the IV Corps of the South's Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) into a fighting retreat. Invoking his power as the head of American advisors in the IV Corps jurisdiction, and with the approval of both ARVN Major General and Corps IV Commander Nguyễn Viết Thanh and the American Senior Advisor to the ARVN IV Corps, Deputy for Civil Operations and Rural Development Support CORDS IV John Paul Vann sallied forth with a detachment of the American concentrated troops of Cà Mau. The second phase of the Dual Offensive began on October 20th of 1969 with an offensive into Tây Nguyên, the central highlands. Unlike in U Minh, where its isolated location prevented broad conventional attacks, Tây Nguyên bordered Cambodia, and was directly accessible from the Hồ Chí Minh trail, which had been left untouched, as President McCarthy refused to expand bombing further into Cambodia [17]. Bu Prang and Duc Lap, American camps that had been left to the ARVN following the implementation of the Gavin Plan, were quickly overrun by communist forces led by Major General Chu Huy Mân. Chu then prepared his forces for an attack on the city of Buôn Ma Thuột, where ARVN II Corps Commander Lữ Mộng Lan was leading, along with his American advisor and commander of I Field Force, Vietnam, Lieutenant General William R. Peers. The Dual Offensive continued until late November, with both fronts ending in joint ARVN-American victories; in U Minh, John Paul Vann fought Lê Đức Anh to a stalemate, with the communists' conventional forces being forced to withdraw before even mounting an attack on Cà Mau. At Tây Nguyên, the communists had managed to attack Buôn Ma Thuột, but the conventional nature of their attack also left them vulnerable to American aerial bombardment and I Field Force, Vietnam's penchant for rapid combined arms attacks. Unable to pierce the defenses due to the sheer concentration of American forces, Chu Huy Mân was forced to retreat back to Bu Prang and Duc Lap [18].

    In the aftermath, Lê Duẩn and his insistence on the advantages of large conventional attacks were completely discredited [19]. Having been growing in power as de facto leader of North Vietnam since 1960, the Politburo and National Assembly turned against him, leaving his ambitions to wither on the vine. After an emergency plenary session of the WPV in early December of 1969, Lê Duẩn was chastised for reckless behaviour damaging to the revolutionary struggle, leaving Trường Chinh and his supporters as the new dominant faction within the party. While Lê Duẩn remained part of the collective leadership, he had been clearly demoted in all but name.

    After his ascendancy, Trường Chinh had the hardline Lê Đức Thọ recalled as the chief Paris negotiator of the secret talks, and replaced him with his ally, the more accommodating Hoàng Văn Hoan, with orders to fast-track the negotiations by confirming the American's concessions, and quickly deciding on the leaders of the coalition government to replace the government in South Vietnam.

    Trường Chinh's takeover and decision to finish the negotiations had come none too soon, as American opposition to the war had reached a fever pitch following a duo of damning disclosures.


    Pham Van Dong, Troung Chinh, and Le Duan left to right.jpg

    Competing personalities in the collective leadership: after a string of military defeats under his watch, Lê Duẩn (right) was replaced as North Vietnam's de facto leader by Trường Chinh (centre), who was a proponent of guerrilla warfare and political takeovers over Lê Duẩn's preference for conventional assaults.

    A man not prone to showy activism, the military analyst Daniel Ellsberg had nonetheless become increasingly disillusioned with the Vietnam War, and increasingly interested in concepts of Gandhian nonviolent resistance. Working at the RAND Corporation think tank, Ellsberg had had a small role in crafting defense policy since the early Johnson Administration, and in 1967, had helped assemble a top-secret study for then-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara that analysed the entirety of the Vietnam War. Officially titled Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force, the report was more commonly known as the Pentagon Papers. The Pentagon Papers revealed that rather than being a humanitarian mission to secure an independent South Vietnam from communist tyranny, the war had been escalated under the Johnson Administration as a policy of containment against the People's Republic of China. The papers also revealed that American military involvement stretched back for decades, usually in confrontational or aggressive actions, and had propped up South Vietnam long after it would have collapsed if left on its own. It also included covered-up details of bombings in Cambodia and Laos, coastal raids on North Vietnam, and other operations that had gone unreported. Furthermore, it revealed that the United States had played a role in the coup that assassinated South Vietnamese President Ngô Đình Diệm. This was contrary to the common belief that American military involvement had begun in 1964 following the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution as a reaction to what was considered an unprovoked attack by the North Vietnamese. Trusting the McCarthy Administration to withdraw from the war, Ellsberg did not feel any great sense of urgency to act, but still believed in releasing the information in cooperation with the government, or at least reminding them that it existed so they could release it. Along with five other RAND war analysts, Ellsberg composed a letter to be published by the New York Times, encouraging unilateral American withdrawal by the end of the year. Ellsberg was further encouraged that the McCarthy Administration was making the right decisions went it went forward with a prosecution in the Green Beret Affair. Under the auspices of Project GAMMA, a CIA-operated intelligence-gathering detachment of the 5th Special Forces Group, Colonel Robert Rheault had approved of the extrajudicial execution of a suspected double-agent, followed by a cover-up with CIA encouragement. Despite the likelihood that evidence would be withheld by MACV and the CIA, the McCarthy Administration decided to press forward with charges of violating the Geneva Conventions [20]. Looking to officially testify on the contents of the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg planned an appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

    Shortly after, the Weathermen began the first strike in their revolution with their Days of Rage in Chicago. Beginning on October 6th, the Weathermen blew up a statue commemorating the police officers who died in the Haymarket affair of 1886, in which a peaceful rally in support of an eight-hour work day turned violent when a suspected anarchist threw a bomb at the police officers dispersing the protest. Later gathering in Lincoln Park with a paltry attendance of three hundred, the Weathermen rioted through the streets, mostly flipping cars, and pillaging small businesses and lower-middle class housing. Breaking off and reappearing to riot over the course of several days, most of the Weathermen were beaten and arrested, and over half left the organization soon after. Those who escaped who remained loyal to the cause became fixated on the idea of building an underground network of secret revolutionary cabals, and went into hiding.

    The Days of Rage achieved very little, though the Weathermen claimed it was a moral victory as it proved their mettle. The riots were incredibly damaging to the reputation of the anti-war movement, and while President McCarthy denounced the Weathermen, his close association with the anti-war movement as a whole began to damage his popularity. The Days of Rage were also incredibly damaging to the trial of the Chicago Eight: with a trial presided over by Judge William Joseph Campbell, eight police officers had been put before the court for police brutality and civil liberties violations during the protests and riots of the previous years' Democratic National Convention. Already a cause célèbre, the huge public support for the Chicago Eight grew even larger following the Days of Rage, and they were acquitted soon after due to a lack of evidence [21].

    Later, as the Dual Offensive continued in Vietnam, Ellsberg gave his bombshell testimony of the Pentagon Papers on November 15th of 1969, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and its new Chair, Senator John Sparkman of Alabama. Ellsberg's testimony was widely reported on as a matter of public record, and curated sections of the Pentagon Papers became available to the public, sparking massive outcry against the fact that the Johnson Administration (as well as the Kennedy, and, to a lesser extent, Eisenhower and Truman Administrations) had been feeding bald-faced lies for years about the true reasons for the war, and the means of its prosecution. By 'owning' the accusations, President McCarthy was able to minimize the damage to the Democratic Party, directing most of the blow-back to Johnson and the Kennedys, with no small degree of smug satisfaction [22].

    The very same week as the Ellsberg testimony and the release of the Pentagon Papers, a massacre of Vietnamese civilians by American troops was revealed, with the killings taking place in Sơn Tịnh District, although the area was more commonly known to the Americans in Vietnam as Mỹ Lai. The man who uncovered the story was none other than President McCarthy's former press secretary Seymour Hersh, who had left the campaign during the Wisconsin primary in protest of McCarthy's unwillingness to publicly associate with black voters. Hersh, who had since been working out of a cheap office in the National Press Building in Washington D.C. as an investigative reporter, recieved a tip-off from Geoffrey Cowan on October 22nd. Cowan was a young lawyer who had also worked for the McCarthy campaign, and he told Hersh that a source had told him that a soldier was being held for court-martial in Fort Benning, Georgia, for the killing of seventy-five civilians. Believing that no one else would be willing to investigate the lead considering similar stories had been left as late-page footnotes in America's newspapers, Hersh renewed his Pentagon press credentials and began to follow the paper trail. Learning the name “Calley” when the man in question had been mentioned offhandedly in a conversation in the Pentagon, Hersh poured over the microfilm records of the New York Times to discover that on a page thirty-eight story, infantry officer William L. Calley Jr. Had been charged with the murder, “in the deaths of an unspecified number of civilians in Vietnam,” in an incident that took place in March of 1968. The incident had also been briefly mentioned on the Huntley-Brinkley Report. Hersh learned further details from a contact on the staff of the hawkish Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, L. Mendel Rivers. With any further records sealed, Hersh contacted Cowan once again, who was able to discover that the name of Calley's lawyer was, “Latimer,” who he eventually identified as George Latimer, a retired judge on the Military Court of Appeals who had returned to practising law in Salt Lake City. Meeting with Latimer, Hersh learned that Calley was being used as a scapegoat for a much far-reaching massacre. Driving down to Georgia, Hersh got into Fort Benning without incident, as it was an open facility. Scouring the base and its various satellite camps, Hersh eventually found Calley's home address. However, as it turned out, Calley had moved, but one of his roommates told Hersh where he had relocated to. Finally meeting up with Calley, the soldier discussed his tales of heroism from the front, but as the interview went on, his stories grew more confused and contradictory, before he finally tried to get Hersh into contact with his commanding officer at Mỹ Lai, Ernest Medina. In an incredibly brief conversation, Medina said he knew nothing of any massacre. Eventually returning back to his office, Hersh phoned Latimer, and confirmed all the relevant details of the story. After initially being rejected by Look and Life magazines, Hersh eventually sold the story through the Dispatch News Service, with coverage beginning on November 12th, quickly spreading from there to become the nation's top news story along with the Pentagon Papers by early December. As the story became public, Hersh was able to hold interviews with other soldiers who participated in Mỹ Lai, with several independent stories corroborating a massacre that Calley and various battalions, regiments, and companies of the 23rd Infantry Division (also known as the Americal Division) participated in, with some claiming that the killings came close to six hundred civilian deaths. As more details came forward, so did the gruesome means of the massacre, including executions, rapes, and mutilations, with hamlets set on fire and grenades thrown into houses, with many of the victims being women and children. With the media coverage expanding, a dam of media self-censorship broke, with unpublished stories of similar massacres being released across the country. As the extent of the massacres became clear, a Pentagon task force titled the Vietnam War Crimes Working Group (VWCWG) was formed. Going further than that, President McCarthy had Secretary Gavin become directly involved in the investigations, and encouraged Congress to form their own independent inquiry, as public opposition to the war reached its highest point yet. With the initial publication of the Mỹ Lai Massacre being on November 12th, and Ellsberg testimony being held on the 15th, the week of November 9-15 of 1969 would come to be known as one of the most newsworthy weeks in American history.


    Seymour Hersh 1969.jpg

    Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh broke the story of the Mỹ Lai Massacre the same week that Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers in a testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Hersh had worked as McCarthy's press secretary during the early days of his presidential campaign.


    Not long after the release of the Mỹ Lai story and the Pentagon Papers, the negotiations finally reached their conclusion in Paris. A ceasefire was agreed upon, with a mutual phased withdrawal of American and North Vietnamese troops, with democratic elections and a unification referendum to be held in September of 1970. In the meantime, South Vietnamese President Nguyễn Văn Thiệu and his regime would resign, or face the stark reality of an immediate and unilateral American withdrawal. In the meantime, a coalition government would form to lead South Vietnam until the elections were to be held. Dương Văn Minh, the general who led the coup that assassinated Ngô Đình Diệm and a proponent of a neutralist Vietnam would be made acting president. The acting vice president would be the communist Nguyễn Hữu Thọ, the President of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam (PRGSVN), a political affiliate of the NLF. The acting prime minister would be former prime minister Trần Văn Hữu, a neutralist who had cooperated with both the French colonial regime and the NLF in the past. Huỳnh Tấn Phát, the Chairman of the PRGSVN, would represent the NLF in the National Assembly; the NLF would be allowed to participate in the 1970 elections, but would have only a marginal caucus in the assembly until then [23]. International observers would monitor South Vietnam's first truly democratic elections, and regardless of the results, American forces would completely withdraw by the end of 1970.

    In North Vietnam, South Vietnam, and the United States alike, celebrations were held.

    The peace had finally been won.

    They would all be home by Christmas.


    [1] IOTL, Rennie Davis and Dave Dellinger organized a counter-inaugural protest on January 19th that had a paltry attendance of ten thousand, with the speakers arguing over access to the microphone, and plainclothes policemen unsuccessfully trying to incite a riot.

    [2] The anti-war protestors’ reception for OTL’s President-elect Nixon was not nearly as positive as it is ITTL. Stones and smoke bombs were thrown at the presidential limo, and Nixon was reportedly furious that he and his wife, Pat Nixon, were, “captives inside the car” who were unable to wave to the spectators. Holding a grudge over it, Nixon mulled over the idea of a blanket ban of protest permits, and complained about it for months.

    [3] IOTL, Jimmy Carter was the first president to walk in the inaugural parade in 1977.

    [4] IOTL, Nixon had a much smaller foreign policy advisory group, which essentially consisted of himself and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, with other foreign policy-related cabinet members, such as Secretary of State William Rogers and Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, trying to make their presences known. Nixon’s negotiator in Paris was his former vice presidential running mate, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., but Lodge was constantly upstaged by Kissinger in his own secret negotiations with the North Vietnamese.

    [5] There was also a marginally relevant ‘right’ faction informally headed by Hoàng Minh Chính, who held various prominent positions throughout the early-to-mid 1960s in North Vietnam. Hoàng Minh Chính was entirely opposed to any military action against the South, and promoted democratization within the WPV. By the collective agreement of the other factions, Hoàng Minh Chính was arrested, and his supporters were purged from the party. He was later a leading member of the more moderate Democratic Party of Vietnam, which served as a controlled opposition party in communist Vietnam until it was banned completely in 1988.

    [6] Technically speaking, the Sangkum communists were already members of the Khmer Rouge, as ‘Khmer Rouge’ was another name for those who were members of the Communist Party of Kampuchea. In this context, Khmer Rouge is used to denote the more radical communists led by Saloth Sâr (later and more commonly known as Pol Pot), while those who initially worked with Sihanouk are described as Sangkum communists.

    [7] The second offensive of 1969 on Kon Tum and Long Khánh was an inconclusive American victory that lasted for over a month IOTL.

    [8] Both IOTL and ITTL China began withdrawing its troops from North Vietnam in November of 1968, starting with their anti-air units. IOTL, they had withdrawn completely by July 1970. ITTL, they are leaving at an even faster pace.

    [9] IOTL, Nixon blew off the meeting with CALCAV and sent Kissinger, who got in a fight with Rabbi Abraham Herschel. CALCAV shortly after ended their moratorium on criticizing the new President.

    [10] This was another meeting that Nixon avoided IOTL and left to Kissinger to handle. Nixon’s White House Domestic Advisor John Ehrlichman was also there, and between himself and Kissinger practically guaranteed a hostile reaction from student groups by claiming, “If you guys think that you can break laws just because you don’t like them, you’re going to force us to up the ante to the point where we have to give out death sentences for traffic violations.”

    [11] Same as IOTL.

    [12] Hesburgh’s ‘fifteen minute rule’ was only invoked once in Notre Dame history, when ten students peacefully blocked entry to on-campus job interviews with the CIA, and Dow Chemical, which produced napalm during the Vietnam War. All ten were suspended, and seven of them returned to finish their degrees.

    [13] The number of protestors who needed medical attention was almost definitely higher than the one hundred and twenty-eight who were hospitalized, as some did not seek treatment in order to avoid arrest. There are varying accounts of how many police officers were injured, with the initial news reports putting it at five, hospital records logging it at nineteen, and with the University of California Police Department claiming it was one hundred and eleven.

    [14] IOTL, Reagan’s handling of the People’s Park protests was at an approval rate of thirty-three to one among Californians.

    [15] The Progressive Labor Party was a splinter group of the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA). The PLP was critical of the CPUSA’s decision to follow the ‘revisionist’ party line of Nikita Khrushchev and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), and represented the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist faction of the CPUSA. The PLP eventually became adherents of the Communist Party of China (CPC), and for most of the 1960s were a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organization.

    [16] Despite the greater legitimacy of more moderate anti-war groups ITTL, the biggest anti-war protest, the Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam, has been butterflied away. The Moratorium, held on October 15th and November 15th of 1969, was the biggest protest in American history until 1982's anti-nuclear weapon protests. The Moratorium was organized by former McCarthy staffers, and with a McCarthy Administration, any possible protests organized by them would be self-defeating and redundant. 1963's March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom was still the largest protest in American history by the end of TTL's 1969.

    [17] IOTL, President Nixon secretly and illegally expanding bombing into Cambodia was a critical factor in that country's destabilization, and never fully succeeded in stopping up the Hồ Chí Minh Trail.

    [18] Circumstances were quite different surrounding the combat in U Minh and Tây Nguyên IOTL. In U Minh, the fighting was spread out all over the district, with the city of Cà Mau never being a target, and with the battle essentially being a draw, with the ARVN-American forces retaining conventional control but the communists retaining guerrilla and grassroots control. At Tây Nguyên, nearly all of the fighting was done at the Bu Prang and Duc Lap camps, which were still under American control rather than being foisted on to the ARVN IOTL. While the communist forces did not take the camps, they held them under siege for months, causing over four thousand enemy casualties and destroying over two hundred planes and vehicles, which was considered a great victory from the North Vietnamese perspective. ITTL, after being drawn into conventional warfare against large numbers of American forces, the North Vietnamese considered U Minh a draw at best, and Buôn Ma Thuột a clear defeat.

    [19] The irony of the Gavin Plan was that it was perfectly suited to defeat the kind of large scale offensives that Lê Duẩn was doggedly committed to, and which ultimately won the Vietnam War IOTL. However, if Trường Chinh's 1969 strategy of protracted struggle and broad rural takeovers had been adopted from the start, the Gavin Plan likely would have been a total disaster for the Americans from a military perspective. Simultaneously, Trường Chinh's protracted struggle strategy would have spread communist forces ludicrously thin in the face of the continued search and destroy and pacification missions that the Nixon Administration pursued IOTL.

    [20] IOTL, Secretary of the Army Stanley Resor dropped the charges against Project GAMMA as the CIA and Commander, U.S. Military Assiatnce Command, Vietnam Creighton Abrams refused to testify. Resor was also likely encouraged by the Nixon Administration to drop the charges. The unsatisfying conclusion of the Green Beret Affair was one of the main motivators of Ellsberg's to illegally photocopy the Pentagon Papers and to reveal them to the public. ITTL, with more confidence in the government, he is taking a somewhat more legalistic approach.

    [21] Eight Chicago police officers actually were charged with police brutality and violation of civil liberties in 1969, but the Nixon Administration had the charges quietly dropped before they went to trial, and retaliated by charging the much more well known Chicago Eight.

    [22] IOTL, Ellsberg was going to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on November 15th of 1969, but his hearing was cancelled. The Nixon Administration launched an extensive media offensive against the anti-war movement, beginning with his November 3rd “Silent Majority” address, followed by several weeks of astroturfed positive response, with Nixon secretly organizing pro-Nixon, pro-government, and pro-war rallies while publicly claiming to have no involvement in planning them, while also taking advantage of the genuine overwhlemingly positive reaction of the speech by the American public. Swept away in a tide of positive opinion for the President, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee cancelled all of the anti-war hearings, and Ellsberg never got the chance to testify. The Pentagon Papers would not be released until 1971, when Ellsberg eventually illegally leaked them to the New York Times, after vainly looking for a more official way to release them for over a year after his cancelled hearing.

    [23] TTL's transitional coalition government of South Vietnam were all figures proposed by the North Vietnamese for a coalition government IOTL.
     
    Last edited:
    The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour: Its Origins and Near-Death
  • The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour: Its Beginnings and Near-Death

    Since the end of the Second World War, the new medium of television had been dominated in the United States by a trio of immensely powerful and influential networkers: the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), and the American Broadcasting Company (ABC). Sitcoms portraying the zany day-to-day lives of upper middle class families had dominated the TV sets of the 1950s with shows like I Love Lucy, Leave It to Beaver, and Father Knows Best, and were accompanied by various comedy and variety programs, most famously the Ed Sullivan Show. Starting in the late 1950s and going into the 1960s, rural and western shows began to take over the airwaves, with programs like The Beverly Hillbillies and Green Acres rising in popularity. More science-fiction oriented programming like Lost in Space, Star Trek, and Batman became more popular with younger audiences starting in the mid-1960s, however, variety shows and westerns reigned supreme. The highest rated show of the time was NBC's Bonanza, a western about a family and their frontier ranch as they came across setting-specific problems, usually involving some sort of moral dilemma. Bonanza played at the highly valued 9:00 p.m. Sunday slot, which was prized by advertisers for its high viewing numbers. Desperate to compete with NBC's smash-hit, CBS had put nine shows up against Bonanza in succession, before each one due to low ratings. With scant time to prepare another program, CBS hired Tom and Dick Smothers to fill the time slot. The Smothers Brothers, actual brothers, were a musical comedy act that had performed at night clubs before appearing as guest stars on various variety shows. Their first show of their own, The Smothers Brothers Show, was an unsuccessful sitcom in which Dick played a publishing executive and Tom was a ghostly guardian angel. Tom frequently complained that the show did not play to their strengths, and his battles over creative control with their producers. The fighting got so intense that Tom developed an ulcer, and damaged his marriage sufficiently that he and his wife divorced soon after. Believing that they had nothing to lose but everything to gain by going up against Bonanza, the Smother Brothers agreed to try their hand at their own variety show, titled The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour, but only on the condition that Tom would have creative control. CBS accepted after minimum consideration, believing the show would tank like all the others.

    1597549543414.png

    The Smothers Brothers: the stars of their eponymous show.

    The show first aired for its first season in the winter of 1966. The preppy, folksy brothers came across as a non-threatening duo. Early episodes were what one would typically expect from a variety show, with comedy bits and piano-playing chickens. However, Tom and the other early lead writer, Mason Williams, quickly began to experiment with political and social commentary, something that had never really been done before on network television. In the first season, comedian Pat Paulsen was usually the conduit of their political bits. He frequently played a deadpan, mentally unstable politician, who was later 'promoted' to vice president in order to more easily mock Hubert Humphrey and the Johnson Administration. In his political 'editorials,' Paulsen would typically frame an issue in the worse possible light and then go on to defend it. Taking a stand against gun control, Paulsen remarked that it was, “every American's God-given right to kill.” In a later episode, “Vice President” Paulsen spoke in favour of conscription, stating, “What are the arguments against the draft? We have heard it is unfair, immoral, discourages young men from studying, ruins their careers, and their lives. Picky, picky, picky.”

    Despite their political commentary, much of the first season was what one would expect from a variety show, with apolitical musical and comedy numbers taking up most of the run-time. Despite this, Smothers Brothers began to skyrocket in the ratings, becoming competitive with Bonanza. The main reason was an overwhelmingly young audience who came to see what political commentary there was. However, it was not long before Tom Smothers and CBS came to a confrontation, when part of the ninth episode was cut. CBS had censored a comedy bit with Tom Smothers and the improv comedian Elaine May, where they play censors censoring a program. Complaining about it to the media, Tom and the censors reached a compromise where he could make an uncensored sketch about the sketch that had been censored.

    Experimenting with the extent of what he could get away with, Tom also hired Leigh French, a Los Angeles based stage comedian, to play the role of the hippie flower child Goldie Kief. French appeared as Goldie for her own segment titled “Share a Little Tea With Goldie” where she would give household advice that was laden with double-entendres and innuendos coded in the slang of the teenage Baby Boomers, most of which went over the heads of the censors. The political commentary of the first season concluded with Pat Paulsen declaring his was running for president. While working as good satire at face value, the writing team also believed that it would be a way to inform the public on about the political process.

    1597549826201.png

    Pat Paulsen for President: Paulsen's deadpan delivery and political commentary was well-received by audiences.

    When the second season of Smothers Brothers began in September of 1967, their political humour became a more prominent fixture of the program, with the first episode beginning with a song titled “the Draft Dodger Rag.” This caused complications, as the President of CBS, Frank Stanton, was a close friend of President Lyndon Johnson. On more than one occasion, Stanton would join the Johnsons for a Sunday dinner at the White House. He would then find himself in the excruciating position of watching the latest episode of Smothers Brothers, where two comedians were mocking the President on his network while the man himself was hovering right over him. Unamused with the Smothers Brothers' brand of humour, Johnson frequently pressured Stanton to intensify censorship.

    As the second season went on, Tom and the writing team began to try and pick out prominent performers associated with the counterculture movement to have on the program. Musicians like Jefferson Airplane, Buffalo Springfield, and Simon & Garfunkel began appearing on the show, and Smothers Brothers' reputation for controversy and an anti-war stance was further solidified by the appearance of Pete Seeger. A well established folk musician and former communist, Seeger had been blacklisted during the Red Scare. While Seeger had been allowed to appear, his latest song, “Waist Deep in the Big Muddy,” an allegory about the Vietnam War, had been cut by the censors. Once against relying on media outreach, the Smother Brothers complained to the press, putting enough pressure on CBS for Seeger to appear later in the season to perform the song. Seeger's performance was the first time that Smothers Brothers got a noticeable amount of hate mail for an appearance on the show.

    While preparing for their third season, Tom had brought on a team of new writers, including Steve Martin, Rob Reiner, and Carl Gottlieb, but there was some question on if they would even be renewed. Ultimately they got approval from CBS to prepare for the 1968-1969 season. As the first appearance of the third season, the brothers sang their own song, “We're Still Here.” The growing conflict between the writing team and CBS continued to escalate as soon as the third season began. A segment featuring Harry Belafonte singing “Don't Stop the Carnival” with footage from the 1968 Democratic National Convention playing in the background was cut entirely, to Tom's frustration. According to the Smothers Brothers, all of their earlier work had never been intended to create controversy, with many of their sketches only being deemed controversial by the CBS censors. However, after Belafonte was cut from the show, Tom, egged on by the rest of the writing team, began to pick fights with CBS by creating intentionally controversial material, to the dismay of Perry Lafferty, CBS' Vice President of Programming, and the liaison between the Smothers Brothers and the network. This confrontationalism culminated in a performance by the comedian David Steinberg, where he gave a sermon that was a comedic retelling of the Bible story of Moses and the burning bush. In the wake of the Steinberg piece, the show got more hate mail than it had ever received before. The shows ratings had also slipped, in part because of conservative backlash, but mostly because they were getting so involved in political issues and media controversies that the writing team was spending less and less time actually trying to work the scripts to be funny. Likewise, many of the more conservative affiliates and local syndicated networks under the CBS umbrella began to drop Smothers Brothers and replace it with reruns of other shows.

    1597550127983.png

    Don't Stop the Carnival: Harry Belafonte's musical performance transposed over the 1968 Democratic National Convention was one of the many controversial bits cut by CBS.

    Despite this, in early 1969, CBS agreed to pick up the show for a fourth season for 1969-1970. Additionally, the seismic shift in the political landscape with the election of Eugene McCarthy gave a different tone to the show. With an anti-war figure as president, many counterculture figures believed that, to at least some extent, they had 'won,' and those considered cutting edge or radical became somewhat more comfortable with the established order of things. This was most keenly felt when Mary McCarthy, the daughter of the President and the most politically active of the McCarthy children, appeared on the show for an extended segment where she was interviewed by “former Vice President” Pat Paulsen. With the aegis of an implicit presidential endorsement behind them, the studio hesitated to play hardball against Smothers Brothers, and the general sense of a satisfaction by the counterculture movement indirectly caused a deescalation between the writers and the network. The writing team decided to put out an olive branch to the network by inviting back Steinberg but acquiescing to the request that he not perform another parody sermon, while the studio reciprocated by not censoring a performance by anti-war singer-songwriter Joan Baez [1].

    While still remaining the most politically focused comedy show on television, Smothers Brothers began to return to its roots of being fun first. With its ratings bouncing back in mid-1969, the show's pioneering social commentary and edgy brand of humour would entertain young audiences for years to come.


    [1] ITTL there was no such deescalation between the Smothers Brothers writers and CBS. Steinberg came back for another controversial sermon. These factors, including a very heated argument between Tom Smothers and CBS' chief executive, William S. Paley, have been butterflied away. IOTL, the show was unceremoniously cancelled mid-season, with a two day late script delivery being used as the excuse by CBS to terminate their contract. An extended lawsuit followed, in which the Smothers brothers ultimately won a breach of contact case, although they would never again reach the same popularity or ratings they had gotten with the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour.
     
    Chapter Seven - Medley: Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In (The Flesh Failures)
  • Chapter Seven - Medley: Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In (The Flesh Failures)

    The Democratic Party had managed to win the presidency yet again, as well as both chambers of Congress, but it remained in a state of barely contained existential crisis. McCarthy may have won the Democratic nomination, but he had only been able to do so because of the indecision of the party bosses, the near-bankruptcy of the party itself, and the extreme unpopularity of the incumbent administration. In the aftermath, the Democratic leadership that had not already been replaced would have to reckon with the fact that the man they had done everything they could to keep from the nomination was now their boss. Not only that, but it was a man infamous for holding a grudge.

    Inspired by McCarthy’s successful presidential challenge, the Democrats became crippled by infighting between November of 1968 and January of 1969, before the 91st Congress had even begun.

    In the Senate, this took the form of a challenge against Majority Whip Russell Long of Louisiana.

    The son of the infamous populist Senator Huey Long, Russell Long had become a political force in his own right over the years. Elected to the Senate at the minimum legal age of thirty, Long had slowly worked his way up the seniority system, to become an expert on tax law and the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee. Following Senate Majority Whip Hubert Humphrey’s ascension to the vice presidency in 1965, Long had taken his place, becoming the Senate’s second highest ranking Democrat after Mike Mansfield of Montana, a liberal Democrat who would come to oppose the Vietnam War. In his dual role as Chair of the Finance Committee and Majority Whip, Long had ushered much of President Johnson’s Great Society and War on Poverty legislation through the Senate. However, despite his support for liberal spending programs, Long was champion of big business (particularly the oil industry, which generously donated to him) and had a social conservative streak that bordered on the reactionary: he had consistently voted against civil rights legislation, believed the Supreme Court was too soft on crime, praised Mayor Daley and the Chicago police for their crackdown against protestors at the Democratic National Convention, and had supported the Vietnam War to the hilt. Despite positions like these, there had never been a liberal mutiny against Long, as Johnson had kept him on an incredibly tight leash. Johnson had effectively acted as his own whip as president, and frequently circumvented Long by using Caucus Secretary Robert Byrd of West Virginia as his liaison. However, with Johnson out of office, the dynamics of Long’s position quickly changed. His tendency to openly talk about backroom deals and his use of oil lobby money to effectively bribe other politicians had earned the ire of liberals and conservatives alike, and his penchant to turn up to the Senate floor drunk also hurt him. By 1969, most of Long’s fellow Southerners had quietly agreed that if he were ever challenged for his title as Majority Whip that they would only provide token support. That challenge came in the form of Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine.

    Muskie was a somber, quiet, intellectual, Catholic liberal, who reminded many people of President McCarthy. Indeed, Muskie was one of McCarthy’s two close friends in the Senate along with Philip Hart of Michigan. Notably, neither of them had supported McCarthy’s nomination challenge: Hart had still been mostly in favour of the Vietnam War despite his daughter campaigning for McCarthy, and Muskie had been busy positioning himself as a pro-Humphrey, anti-war candidate for vice president. After McCarthy’s nomination, they both quickly rallied to his side, and while the President has mostly forgiven them for their past transgressions, he never missed an opportunity to hold it over their heads either [1]. Receiving encouragement from Hart and other Senate liberals, Muskie decided to challenge Long, but not before confirming he had the support of Ted Kennedy, who reportedly had had a fleeting interest in the position [2].

    It seemed that Muskie, at face value, would be able to draw a relatively wide field of support. Mansfield could not openly support him but privately made it clear he was his preference. He also received the support of the Kennedys (technically two votes in the Senate if one included the still-absent Bobby), as well as Chair of the Senate Commerce Committee Warren Magnuson. Likewise, senior Southern Democrats such as Richard Russell of Georgia and John Stennis of Mississippi informed Muskie that they would not be “putting any roadblocks” in the way. Their ideal outcome was that Muskie would narrowly win, and they could then challenge him later with their favourite candidate, Robert Byrd, next time around. As it turned out, the biggest roadblock was the President himself. McCarthy had served on the Finance Committee under Long, and when Muskie asked for his support, the President casually remarked, “I don’t know, I haven’t got anything against Russell Long. I don’t see any reason to strike out against him over something this unimportant.” McCarthy considered the position of whip to be a largely ceremonial role – especially after the Johnson years – and believed there would be no great change in his ability to pass his legislative agenda regardless of who held the position. Under extreme pressure from the liberal wing of his cabinet to support Muskie, McCarthy met them half way and publicly declared his neutrality [3]. For his part, Long was caught completely off-guard by the challenge. Calling in old favours and making new promises, he desperately tried to hold on to his position.

    In a narrow vote, Muskie triumphed over Long, ironically, because of people’s assumptions. The liberals assumed that McCarthy secretly preferred Muskie and he was only keeping quiet to mollify the South. The South believed the same thing, and despite sabotaging Long themselves, felt that McCarthy was being truly gentlemanly about the whole thing. With Muskie as Majority Whip, the liberal nature of the 91st Congress was guaranteed.

    Meanwhile, if things had been simple in the Senate, they were an absolute mess in the House.

    Speaker of the House John William McCormack had served in that position since 1962, and had been a representative since 1928. An able legislator and eloquent debater, he had overseen not only Johnson’s Great Society and War on Poverty’s, but Kennedy’s New Frontier as well. Despite this, McCormack had never been popular; he was blunt, withdrawn, incredibly formal, and devoutly Catholic, which evidently made for good presidential timber but not for a good Speaker. While he was respected, he had never been able to make connections like his mentor and predecessor as Speaker, Sam Rayburn of Texas. Additionally, the liberal wing of the party considered him overly close with the South. Elderly Southern Democrats dominated the important committee chairmanships, and McCormack brusquely dismissed suggestions by young liberals to change the seniority system to something more democratic. By the late 1960s, there had been growing calls for his replacement. In January of 1967, the Washington Post criticized his leadership style and closeness with the South, prompting the Southern Democrats to rally to his cause. Most vocal of all were his direct subordinates: Majority Leader Carl Albert of Oklahoma, Majority Whip Hale Boggs of Louisiana, and Chair of the House Armed Services Committee L. Mendel Rivers of South Carolina. Asking to be recognized for “a long minute,” River remarked, “Mr. Speaker, when they undertake to vilify the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, they undermine the war effort of America, they undermine the fighting man on the battlefront and the most anti-Communist man in America, and they offend the dignity and the sensibilities of each one of us...” Besides being a matter of procedure, Rivers’ support for McCormack was also tied into their mutual support for the Vietnam War. While the backlash against the Washington Post abated criticisms of McCormack for a time, they had re-emerged by the end of the year. Richard Bolling of Missouri– a protégé of Rayburn’s along with McCormack – called for his resignation in October of 1967. Attacking him from the left, Bolling claimed that McCormack was standing in the way of essential House reform, accusing him of being “the greatest defender of the status quo because it made him Speaker.” Writing off Bolling as jealous for not having been chosen as Speaker himself, McCormack’s Southern allies once again went on the attack. While the criticisms had dulled for most of 1968, they had come back stronger than ever following McCarthy’s election. Looking to parse out the extent of his support, McCormack began sending out letters to representatives starting in late November of 1968. He also secured the support of Albert to make sure his second-in-command would not challenge him for the Speakership. However, McCormack had not covered all of his bases, as Boggs considered a challenge, and Bolling continued to agitate [4]. Even Brock Adams, who had only been in the House since 1965, seemed to imply he was going to challenge McCormack. But, ultimately, it was not Bolling, Boggs, nor Adams who challenged McCormack, but the relatively obscure Morris K. Udall of Arizona.

    More commonly known as Mo, Udall was Arizona's only Democrat on the federal level. Brother of Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall, Mo had made his mark in his eight years in the House as a quick witted liberal reformer was was opposed to the Vietnam War. Believing it was time for a change of leadership and congressional procedural reform, Udall decided to challenge McCormack. Managing his 'campaign' was Frank Thompson, a representative from New Jersey who was also an ally of Bolling. Looking to craft an alliance, Thompson approached the incredibly influential Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, Wilbur Mills of Arkansas. Thompson voiced the possibility of a Mills-Udall 'ticket' to challenge McCormack, with Mills as the new Speaker and Udall as his deputy. Mills was reluctant however, as he had no ambitions beyond his chairship, and had to be convinced that Udall was not a stalking horse for Bolling, whom he and much of the rest of the House disliked due to his brash and grating personality. Mills opined that he would do it if asked by the President-elect, but McCarthy remained aloof of the whole affair, much as he had been doing with the simultaneous Senate intrigues. Instead, Mills suggested that they should approach Albert. Udall did indeed call Albert, who rattled off a list of McCormack's various shortcomings, but he showed no visible interested in a challenge, and implied that Udall should try and take the position of Majority Whip from Boggs instead [5]. Despite these proposed alternatives, Udall pushed forward, and prepared a declaration of his candidacy on December 26th of 1968, to be circulated to the rest of the House's Democrats. In his letter, Udall declared that he had great respect for McCormack, but that it was time for a fresh start, and that many members of the party wanted reform. Distancing himself from the liberal wing of the party, Udall promised to run a subdued campaign, and claimed to be a candidate of change rather than a candidate of any ideology or faction. In this way, he hoped that he could position himself as the 'anti-McCormack' candidate rather than a 'pro-Udall' one. He was also looking to emulate a McCarthy-esque acceptability to Southerners. Udall also encouraged a secret ballot, and, most notably, announced that if he defeated McCormack he would open a second round of voting in which any candidate could enter. By doing so, Udall hoped to encourage ambitious members of the mid-tier leadership to support him on the first ballot. Regardless of the outcome of later ballots, he believed that he would be in a strong enough posture to demand some kind of leadership position either way.

    Having declined to comment up to that point, McCarthy quickly warmed to the idea of a second ballot. He was barely acquainted with Udall, but felt that his call for a second ballot was emblematic of his own calls for a second ballot at the 1960 Democratic National Convention, so that each delegate (or, in this case, representative), could vote their conscience. Without even mentioning either candidate's name, McCarthy declared his support for the second ballot idea, implicitly endorsing Udall in the process.

    The lead-up to the vote remained unclear, as many representatives avoided making commitments, despite intensive schmoozing from both McCormack and Udall. Following McCarthy's semi-endorsement, Udall began to more openly associate himself with the New Politics label, and met with Vice President Connally to assure him that if he were to win that Texas' longstanding influence in the House would be maintained.

    When the caucus was held in January of 1969, Udall managed to beat out McCormack [6]. Although the vote was secret, attitudes leading up to it indicated that Udall received his support from pro-McCarthy New Politicians, Southerners closely associated with the national and congressional leadership (namely in Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana), and some more reform-minded moderates. McCormack appeared to receive his support from the majority of the committee chairs and their followers, as well as representatives from heavily unionized districts opposed to Udall's support for right-to-work legislation [7].

    Expecting firmer presidential support in the second round of voting, Udall was sorely mistaken. McCarthy returned to his comfortable neutrality, risking a brutal, drawn out voting process in the House. Despite this, there were no clear challengers against Udall. While Albert was privately interested in the Speakership, he knew he likely not be able to get it. Albert had been the Chair of the Democratic National Convention in 1968, and McCarthy held Albert accountable for the convention's bias against him and his supporters. If Albert had entered the race, McCarthy would have begun openly supporting Udall out of spite. Mills continued to be uninterested despite being able to easily win the vote, while Boggs was in the process of being vetted for Director of the FBI, and no longer had an immediate interest in the Speakership. Sensing a golden opportunity, Bolling entered the race, portraying himself as a more seasoned and realistic liberal candidate. Caucus Chairman Dan Rosenkowski also entered. As the highest ranking Democrat willing to run he felt entitled to the position, and as the most moderate of the candidates felt he would be the most likely to succeed. Last but not least was James G. O'Hara, the regional whip for Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. O'Hara was a founding member of the Democratic Study Group along with McCarthy, but he had eventually taken a more moderate path. O'Hara had supported Humphrey and the Vietnam War up to the convention, but otherwise, he was considered a champion of various liberal causes, including congressional procedural reform. O'Hara positioned himself as a dark horse compromise candidate, and was the rallying point for the minority of liberal-moderate House Democrats who could not tolerate Udall's past anti-unions votes, did not like Bolling, and were unsure about Rostenkowski [8]. In the second round of voting, Udall kept his lead, but he did not reach the majority he needed to win. The ever-ambitious Bolling called in all the favours he could and placed second, while O'Hara placed third. Rostenkowski placed a dismal fourth, in spite of his title as Caucus Chairman [9]. In the third round, Udall's lead narrowed as O'Hara surpassed Bolling. In the fourth and final round, with Bolling and Rostenkowski having both dropped out, O'Hara easily defeated Udall. Udall would gripe that he could have won the whole thing on the second ballot if McCarthy had intervened, but he was still pelased with his incredibly strong showing, and secured the position of House Majority Whip soon after Boggs left the office for the FBI. As for Albert, he remained Majority Leader.

    Soon after this unprecedented reshuffling of House leadership, McCarthy invited O'Hara, Albert, and Udall to the Oval Office to congratulate them on the success of the democratic process. If any of them had peaked inside his desk, they would have found a letter from eleven years earlier:

    “Dear Eugene: Congratulations on your entry into the Senate in this coming Congress. I have always been proud of you.”

    -John W. McCormack​

    James O'Hara with James McDivitt - Copy.jpg

    James G. O'Hara (left), with astronaut James McDivitt. O'Hara was the unexpected victor of the Speaker of the House caucus vote following Mo Udall's successful challenge to remove the incumbent, John McCormack. O'Hara was a domestic liberal, a moderate on the Vietnam War, and a proponent of congressional procedural reform.

    The chaos and factionalism of the Democrats choosing their new leadership would have been a golden opportunity for congressional Republicans, if they had not been in an even worse state.

    Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois had lost re-election in an upset to his Democratic challenger, William G. Clark. Clark had been an open McCarthy supporter and had drafted the peace plank at the Democratic National Convention, and rode McCarthy's big coattails in the state to victory. Dirksen's most obvious replacement, Senate Minority Whip Thomas Kuchel of California, had also been defeated, but by a right wing primary challenger named Max Rafferty. Rafferty went on to lose in the general election to Alan Cranston, another McCarthy supporter. This marked the first instance of the two Senate leadership positions being vacated at the same time in American history. Because of this, the two candidates who had been planning to battle it out for the position of Minority Whip instead found themselves thrust forward into a battle for Minority Leader. The choice of Dirksen and the conservatives for the position was Roman Hruska, the Senator from Nebraska. A fiscal conservative who was tough on crime, the cantankerous Hruska was nonetheless consistently progressive on civil rights legislation. Challenging him was Hugh Scott, the Senator from Pennsylvania, the choice of the party's moderates and liberals (colloquially known as the progressives). A supporter of Nelson Rockefeller at the Republican National Convention, Scott was equally progressive to Hruska on civil rights, but was a fiscal moderate, and was considered the more able legislator of the two. While the battle for influence was fiercely fought, Hruska won out by a single vote to attain leadership, with his victory being attributed to a backlash against the moderate Nixon's defeat and the conservatives making more gains than the progressives in the Senate elections [10]. The vote for Minority Whip was, on the other hand, a matter of compromise. In 1959, conservatives and progressives within the party had agreed to choose a conservative from the Midwest as leader and a western progressive as deputy, leading to Dirksen and Kuchel, respectively. With a conservative from the Midwest as leader once again, there was an inclination within the party to make a similar compromise. The most obvious choice for Minority Whip was Mark Hatfield of Oregon, the last of the prominent western progressives, but he was disqualified due to the fact that he had openly supported McCarthy over Nixon in the presidential election [11]. Turning to the East Coast, there was some consideration for Jacob Javits of New York or Edward Brooke of Massachusetts, but they were both on the left fringe of the party, and were considered too much of a compromise by the conservatives. Eventually Scott was chosen as the simplest choice, and began the session as Minority Whip under Hruska [12].

    Things were much calmer for the House Republicans. The conservative-leaning moderate Gerald Ford of Michigan remained House Minority Leader, with his dreams of a Republican majority and the title of Speaker being dashed by the static results for the House elections in 1968. He was joined by the entirely conservative House Minority Whip Leslie Arends of Illinois. Republican progressives in the House looked on in envy at the shake-ups on the Democratic side compared to what they considered to be their own moribund leadership. Meanwhile, the moderate Melvin Laird of Wisconsin retained the third highest position as Conference Chairman [13]. Laird was known for his frequent battles for influence with Ford, which caused persistent infighting amongst the House Republicans. There was also the matter of the Republican Committee on Planning and Research, affectionately known to its supporters as P & R. It had been established by Ford after he had forcibly taken over the Republican leadership from his predecessor, Charles Halleck, and it was designed to circumvent the rest of the House's Republican leadership by ignoring committee chairs and making its own policy proposals and task forces. Chaired by the moderate Charles Goodell of New York, a confrontation on the status of the P & R was inevitable; conservatives were waiting for Goodell to make a planned run for Senate so that they could abolish the post, while the progressives were looking to put in a progressive successor to Goodell as Chair in the form of a young representative from Illinois named Donald Rumsfeld [14].

    Roman Hruska and David Eisenhower cropped.png

    Roman Hruska with David Eisenhower, grandson of President Dwight Eisenhower. The younger Eisenhower interned with Hruska in his role as the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The conservative Hruska was chosen as the Republican's Senate Minority Leader in 1969.

    While all of Congress' changes in leadership resolved within January of 1969, there was still the matter of the Supreme Court to take into consideration. In 1968, Chief Justice Earl Warren declared that he would retire. Warren, a progressive Republican, had previously served as Governor of California and the 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee. Appointed as Chief Justice by President Eisenhower in 1953, Warren oversaw some of the most famously liberal and civil libertarian rulings in American history. Landmark decisions had been made on civil rights, criminal justice, civil liberties, separation of church and state, and the loosening of censorship. Warren believed that Nixon was the most likely to be elected president in 1968, but also believed he was an untrustworthy opportunist. Attempting to preempt a Nixon Administration shaping the Supreme Court, Warren declared his retirement months before the election, asking President Johnson to begin proceedings to replace him. This drew heavy criticism from conservatives, who – expecting a moderate or conservative Republican to win in November – accused Warren of trying to circumvent democracy for his own ideological purposes.

    Refusing to waste a golden opportunity, Johnson had gone forward with choosing a new Chief Justice. His pick was Associate Justice Abe Fortas. Fortas, a Jewish liberal from the South, had been Undersecretary of the Interior under the Franklin Roosevelt Administration, and had been a close ally of Johnson for decades. He had represented Johnson in the incredibly hotly contested 1948 Senate Democratic primary in Texas, where Johnson won by eighty-seven votes amidst widespread accusations of voter fraud. Using his connections in Washington, namely with Associate Justice Hugo Black, Fortas ensured that Johnson's name would appear on the ballot for the general election, and stopped an investigation into the voter fraud accusations before they had begun. Since then, Fortas had run his own private practice while also giving legal advice to Johnson. Once president, Johnson created a vacancy on the Supreme Court by asking Associate Justice Arthur Goldberg to become US Ambassador to the UN so that he could appoint Fortas to the position. Believing that some of his Great Society and War on Poverty legislation might be ruled unconstitutional, Johnson wanted Fortas on the court both as a consistent liberal vote, and as an early warning system for any unfavourable rulings. Once on the Supreme Court, Fortas closely collaborated with Johnson, to the extent that it made some of the other Justices uncomfortable. Otherwise, Fortas' positions were consistent with the liberalism of the Warren Court. Additionally, if Fortas were to be made Chief Justice, his position as Associate Justice would be vacated. Johnson planned to fill the second position with Judge Homer Thornberry, another personal friend who had once represented the same district in the House of Representatives as Johnson had. Believing it would be a relatively easy feat to have the Senate confirm Fortas and Thornberry, Johnson faced a rude awakening; social conservatives in both parties believed that Fortas was much too liberal to be Chief Justice, while Republicans accused both appointments of being products of nepotism, and Everett Dirksen had been mistaken when he told Johnson he would be able to bring the Republicans around. Senator Richard Russell of Georgia, Johnson's old mentor, summed up the mood of the Southern Democrats when he remarked "We will support Abe Fortas, but we will enthusiastically support Homer Thornberry." However, opposition persisted from the Republicans, with Strom Thurmond of South Carolina leading the charge on social conservatism, and Robert Griffin of Michigan leading on the nepotism issue. Facing an extensive filibuster, Fortas decided to withdraw his name from consideration in October of 1968, automatically withdrawing Thornberry's name as well.

    With McCarthy as president, the selection of a new Chief Justice entered a new stage. At the Democratic National Convention, McCarthy had privately promised Connally that he would resubmit the names of Fortas and Thornberry, but Fortas' self-withdrawal effectively absolved him of that promise. Instead, McCarthy put forward the name of Associate Justice William O. Douglas, Fortas' mentor. Appointed by Franklin Roosevelt in 1939, Douglas was a staunch civil libertarian, and one of the most consistently liberal members of the Warren Court. He also appealed to McCarthy because he was the only Supreme Court Justice to openly oppose the Vietnam War. However, the extent of Douglas' civil libertarianism was just as unacceptable to conservatives as Fortas had been: he had granted a stay of execution for Julius and Ethel Rosenburg – who had been sentenced to death for giving American nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union – on the grounds that they had not received a jury trial; in the case Roth v. United States, Douglas had given a dissenting opinion from the left, arguing that pornography was protected under the First Amendment; he had also drawn controversy for publishing articles in various counterculture and pornographic magazines. Despite McCarthy's initial enthusiasm, it quickly became clear that Douglas was unacceptably liberal for the Senate to confirm, especially considering McCarthy made no effort to try and convince anyone. The Douglas attempt was quickly aborted, and McCarthy instead put forward the name of Associate Justice William J. Brennan Jr. Only slightly less liberal than Douglas and privately opposed to the Vietnam War, Brennan was reassuringly clean of controversy and unorthodox takes. Considering he was the best they were going to get, the Southern Democrats agreed to confirm Brennan, under the condition that Thornberry would be his replacement. Now free of clear accusations of nepotism, the Democrats made their Supreme Court appointments.

    With Brennan's ascension to Chief Justice, the Supreme Court had four liberals and moderates each, with only one conservative [15]. But, this balance was quickly thrown out of equilibrium, as yet another intrigue gripped Fortas. A Life magazine investigation in May of 1969 revealed that Fortas was on a twenty thousand dollar a year retainer from the Wall Street financier Louis Wolfson. Paid to give unspecified 'advice,' many interpreted the arrangement as a bribe, as Wolfson frequently found himself in trouble with the law for a series of white collar crimes. With impeachment proceedings opening and facing intense pressure from other members of the Supreme Court, Fortas resigned. He would later claim that he had "resigned to save Douglas," who was under investigation for a similar scandal. As Fortas' replacement, McCarthy put forward the unconventional choice of David Riesman, a famous sociologist. Riesman was most famous as the author of The Lonely Crowd, a sociological analysis of American cultural development in relation to the middle class. As for his qualifications, Riesman was a graduate of Harvard Law School, a former member of the Harvard Law Review, had clerked for Supreme Court Associate Justice Louis Brandeis, and had taught at both the University of Buffalo Law School and the University of Chicago. Legally and philosophically, Riesman was an advocate of individualism and civic and civil rights, being a critic of both American consumer culture and socialist collectivism. Caught completely off guard by the proposal, hearings on Riesman's selection continued well into late 1969, but he was eventually confirmed by the Senate, with the expectation that he would be a liberal member of the Brennan Court. An impeachment investigation into Douglas headed by House Minority Leader Ford continued well into 1970.

    Philip Glass and David Riesman.jpg

    Most famous for his sociological research and his book The Lonely Crowd, David Riesman was McCarthy's unexpected pick for the Supreme Court, following the resignation of Associate Justice Abe Fortas. He is seen here, seated, with composer Philip Glass.

    Beyond the matters of leadership struggles and judicial appointments, McCarthy also began to deal with his legislative agenda. Titled New Politics, the cornerstone of McCarthy's domestic policy were the Four New Civil Rights: a minimum income, healthcare coverage for every American, expanded education and workforce training, and the right to a decent house. To address the first of these, McCarthy began to explore an idea that united both laissez-faire capitalists and Post-Keynesian economist: a guaranteed minimum income. The drafting of the proposed legislation, titled the Adequate Income Act (AIA), was overseen by Secretary of Housing, Education, and Welfare Daniel Patrick Moynihan, with assistance from Secretary of Treasury John Kenneth Galbraith. Believing the most direct solution to poverty was "cold cash," Moynihan's version was the original draft of the AIA. The Moynihan Plan used a nuclear family of a mother, father, and two children as the metric, though coverage would not just be limited to families of four. A family would receive a stipend, to be sent either monthly or annually, which would amount to 1,600 dollars a year until the family reached the poverty line of 3,290 dollars. Including food stamps and other related welfare programs, the effective annual stipend would be 2,464 dollars a year. With the AIA expected to come into effect in the 1971-1972 fiscal year, the Moynihan Plan would add nearly four and a half billion dollars to the welfare budget, which already stood at around two hundred billion dollars if spending trends continued at the same rate. An additional investment would be attached to the AIA which would cover the third New Civil Right, and would include hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidized daycare, adult education, and on-the-job training [16]. Galbraith's additions to the Moynihan Plan was a 'grandmother clause' which would maintain the rate for those already on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) at 4,119 dollars a year, and a negative income tax that would exempt those on AIA from taxation.

    While conceptually agreeing with a guaranteed minimum income, the Moynihan Plan was fiercely opposed by the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), founded by George Wiley, a chemist and black civil rights activist. Founded in August of 1967, the NWRO was created to represent people on welfare, with the single most visible group of the organization being black single mothers. The NWRO was opposed to invasive questions and investigations by welfare case workers, the stigmatization of welfare recipients (particularly the stigmatization of black single mothers as 'welfare queens'), and the often inconsistently enforced rules of the welfare system, among other issues. However, the NWRO had also drawn controversy due to its growing tendency for direct action and takeovers of welfare offices, and while it had never used violence, it occasionally threatened to bring in militant groups like the Black Panther Party. They also boldly refused any private charity, and demanded money up front from the government rather than needed items; they believed that they were entitled to government welfare as a human right, and that they should be able to purchase high quality goods and products such as fashionable clothing, based on the psychological theory that poverty induced self-hatred. This limited their support from moderates who might otherwise have been sympathetic, as it played into the stereotype of poverty as a personal failing. As one analyst put it, "No one appreciates a panhandler with an 'exact change only' sign." Regardless, by 1969, the NWRO supported the concept of a guaranteed minimum income and they had drafted their own plan, but there were disagreements over the particulars between the membership – which was mostly black, female, unemployed, or working poor – and the organization's bureaucracy – which was professionally educated, middle class, and more frequently white and/or male. Much more ambitious than the Moynihan Plan, the NWRO Plan would provide 5,500 dollars a year for a family of four, which would increase with earnings until the family was making 10,000 dollars a year (for example, if a family was earning 9,887 dollars a year, they would receive 8,792 dollars in guaranteed income, which would push them nearly five times above the poverty line). The figure of 5,500 dollars was chosen as the minimum figure because the NWRO claimed that the poverty line of 3,290 dollars was enough to literally not die, but that, according go the Department of Labor, 5,500 dollars was the minimum for "maintenance of health and social well being, the nurture of children, and participation in community activities." The NWRO Plan specified that it did not cover costs for a car, cigarettes, out-of-town travel, laundromats, long-distance phone calls, and life insurance, with the whole system being monitored by "spot checks." As a work incentive, there would be a sixty-six percent income tax until recipients went off if guaranteed minimum income. Whitney Young, one of the 'Big Six' of civil rights activists and the Executive Director of the National Urban League, proposed an even higher stipend of 6,500 dollars a year, and there were calls within the NWRO to remove work incentives entirely as being "an act of political repression."

    Having extensive ties to the organization from his presidential campaign, McCarthy preferred the NWRO Plan, and asked for it to be introduced into the Senate, over the loud protests of Moynihan [17]. Introducing the AIA into the Senate was Fred Harris of Oklahoma, chosen for the role due to his place on the Senate Finance Committee. A supporter of Humphrey during the primaries and at the convention, Harris had swung hard into the New Politics camp following McCarthy's election, and had adopted guaranteed minimum income as his pet project. Harris began introducing the NWRO Plan version of the AIA to his fellow members of the Finance Committee, with the full knowledge that it would be absolutely unacceptable to the rest of the committee. Harris was quickly proven right by Russell Long. Despite losing the title of Majority Whip, he was still the Chair of the Finance Committee, and an opponent of the NWRO. With McCarthy believing his job as president was done once the legislation was introduced to Congress, he began moving on to other projects, giving Harris an opportunity to shine. He introduced his own compromise plan of 3,600 dollars a year (above the Moynihan's 1,600 dollars and the 3,290 dollar poverty line, but below the 5,500 dollar suggestion of the NWRO and the Department of Labor), with Moynihan's work incentives and New Civil Rights overlap legislation still in place along with Galbraith's grandmother clause and negative income tax. While the price tag on the Harris Plan was still significantly higher than Long's preference for the Moynihan Plan, Harris reminded the more hesitant members of the committee that many welfare programs would be removed as redundancies and to help pay for the AIA, such as AFDC. Harris also played off Long's sympathies toward the President due to their long-standing working relationship (McCarthy had also served on the Finance Committee) and his neutrality during the whip fight.

    In the end, the Harris Plan version of the AIA was accepted by the Senate Finance Committee by a vote of nine to eight. In favour were Senators Russell Long of Louisiana, Albert Gore of Tennessee, Vance Hartke of Indiana, Abraham Ribicoff of Connecticut, Fred Harris of Oklahoma, Harry Byrd Jr. of Virginia, William Proxmire of Wisconsin, and John J. Gilligan of Ohio, all Democrats. In opposed were Senators John Williams of Delaware, Wallace Bennett of Utah, Carl Curtis of Nebraska, Herman Talmadge of Georgia, Jack Miller of Iowa, Len Jordan of Idaho, Paul Fannin of Arizona, and Gordon Allott of Colorado, all of whom but Talmadge were Republicans [18].

    The NWRO were very unhappy with the Harris Plan to say the least. Wiley announced that they would not care if the AIA passed either way, and would come out completely against it if Congress watered down the rest of the New Civil Rights legislation. Further demands by the NWRO to testify before the Finance Committee were denied by Long [19].

    With the understanding that the AIA was a major part of President McCarthy's domestic agenda, Senate Democrats rallied to ensure its passage. Quickly invoking cloture, it received unanimous support from liberal Democrats, and also held a reasonable amount of appeal to Southern Democrats, in part because of their continued reciprocity with McCarthy, but mostly because they could return to their voters and say they had dramatically reduced the size of the welfare state. Even with some defections from especially fiscally conservative Democrats, the AIA was able to make up the difference with the support of the most liberal of the progressive Republicans, and it passed in the Senate by a comfortable margin. Although it still had to make its way through the House, the world's first guaranteed minimum income proposal had come much closer to reality.

    Although the AIA took the most interest, other laws were in the works as well. The Tax Reform Act of 1969 was passed, which McCarthy had helped craft during his time in the Senate on the Finance Committee. While it provided several minor changes and recalibrated the tax code, its main purpose was to add an alternative minimum tax, which was designed to tax wealthy individuals, trusts, or corporations who had otherwise avoided paying any taxes through loopholes and deductibles.

    The fourth of McCarthy's New Civil Rights also began to make its way through committee in the form of the Federal Aid Housing Act of 1969. Modeled after the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, which created the Interstate Highway system, the Housing Act aimed to build at least three and a half million affordable suburban homes – if not several million more – over a five to ten year period. Like with the Highway Act, construction would be contracted out to private companies, and up to six billion dollars were to be allocated to it per year. Costs would initially be covered by ending the Vietnam War budget, but once that ran out it would be re-allocated to the Treasury General Fund. Eventually, it was expected that a Federal Housing trust fund would be created with a new source of income to pay for it. An incredibly ambitious plan, the Housing Act was designed with the goal of ending the country's ghettos entirely, and would effectively end the de facto segregation that was still common across the nation. It also had an incredibly optimistic budget: judging by the expenses of the Highway Act, the Housing Act would cost nearly five times more than what they were hoping to pay.

    McCarthy's presidency also marked the beginning of a new wave of environmental legislation. On January 28th of 1969, a massive oil spill occurred in the Santa Barbara channel, off the coast of the city of Santa Barbara and northwest of Los Angeles. The Santa Barbara channel been coveted by the oil industry for decades, for its huge underwater petroleum reserves which were close enough to the shore to be easily accessible for nascent offshore drilling technology. The amount of federal leases for oil drilling in the channel ballooned throughout 1968, to the chagrin of the local communities, who had advertised the area as a tourist spot with pristine waters. Foreshadowing the larger spill, two thousand gallons of crude oil spilled into the channel on June 7th of 1968, despite assurances from the oil industry and Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall that a spill was impossible. Finally, the major spill came from Union Oil's Platform A due to a pressure build-up of oil, gas, and mud while a drill bit was being changed. Attempts to plug up the well with steel and concrete were only partially successful, and oil would continue to leak out for months. Up to 672,000 gallons of oil were spilled, becoming an ecological disaster and killing thousands of animals. Trying to minimize the public relations fiasco, the President of Union Oil, Fred Hartley, said he would not call it a disaster as no humans had died he was "amazed at the publicity for the loss of a few birds." Outcry was furthered by the indecision of the federal government, which rapidly halted, resumed, and halted oil production in the channel after the spill. McCarthy was criticized for not appearing in person, leaving it to Secretary of the Interior Ernest Gruening. When asked why he seemed uninterested in the disaster, the President replied that his presence would not change the situation at all, so there was no point going. Spillage continued into 1970, with the environmental recovery taking much longer than that. In the aftermath, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) was introduced into the Senate by Henry Jackson of Washington. The NEPA would establish the President's Council on Environmental Quality, and would require federal agencies to provide regular environmental audits. While not particularly extensive, the NEPA was expected to easily pass, and drafts for other environmental legislation was to follow soon after. The Santa Barbara oil spill also prompted renewed interest in the removal of the oil depletion allowance, which had exempted nearly a third of the profits of the oil industry from federal taxation. McCarthy had frequently voted to protect it in his time in the Senate.

    But, for all of the prospective legislative accomplishments of the first year of the McCarthy Administration, America's greatest triumph would have nothing to do with the President; it would have to do with the Moon.

    Larry O'Brien and Fred Harris.jpg

    Senator Fred Harris (right) is seen here with former Democratic National Committee Chairman Larry O'Brien. Harris was instrumental in the passage of the Adequate Income Act through the Senate. The Adequate Income Act was the first guaranteed minimum income proposal in modern history.

    In 1961, President Kennedy had famously announced his ambition that there would be a manned mission to land on the Moon by the end of the decade. By 1969, Kennedy's ambition became a reality under the auspices of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    In December of 1968, the Apollo 8 mission became the first manned mission to orbit the Moon. Apollo 8 gathered information for a future landing site before returning to Earth. It was followed up by Apollo 9 in March of 1969. While Apollo 9 only orbited the Earth, it was the first to test out the lunar excursion module that would be used for the actual Moon landing, and performed a series of remote control maneuvers. It was then followed by Apollo 10, which effectively served as the test flight for the real Moon landing. Apollo 10 approached the Moon, and lowered the lunar module above the chosen landing site in the Sea of Tranquility, a lunar basalt plain. Somewhat forebodingly, the lunar module entered into what was described as a "combination of minor and easily correctable failures," meaning it went spinning out of control for eight seconds before stabilizing. The three astronauts chosen for the most important mission of all, Apollo 11, were Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins. Armstrong was a test pilot who had been on the Gemini 8 mission, which featured the first successful docking between spacecraft. Aldrin was a West Point graduate and mechanical engineer who had helped design the NASA in-space docking procedures. Collins, also a West Point graduate, had served as the pilot of Gemini 10. The roles were assigned with Armstrong as the mission commander, Aldrin as the pilot of the lander module, and Collins as the pilot of the command module which would remain in orbit. As the lander pilot, Aldrin was originally going to be the first man on the Moon, but NASA changed procedures in March of 1969 so that Armstrong – in his role as mission commander – would be the first.

    Launching on the morning of July 16th, the three men entered lunar orbit seventy-six hours later. While making the descent, the lander module experienced a recurrent false error code which turned out just to be an information overload, but, in the confusion, the lander, with Armstrong and Aldrin inside, were heading for a dangerously sloped plot of earth. Switching to manual control, Armstrong avoided the slope and found a flat-bottomed crater to land in. With the engines blasting the lunar dust away with magnificent force, the astronauts had not realized at first that they had already landed. Ignoring NASA's advice to get some sleep, Armstrong and Aldrin spent several hours completing shutdown protocols before suiting up and activating a television transmitter.

    Noting the the appearance and texture of the lunar surface, Armstrong prepared to step foot on the lunar surface, and said the famous words that were broadcast to a fifth of the world's population: "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."

    Planting an American flag and some other items and research material, Armstrong and Aldrin explored the lunar surface, collecting space rocks among other things. By rerouting the transmission through NASA's mission control in Houston, Texas, McCarthy was able to phone the astronauts from the White House. Waxing poetic about the Moon and the indomitable nature of the human spirit, the very practically-minded space men seemed rather bemused by the President's call.

    Twenty-two hours after landing, Armstrong and Aldrin safely left the Moon's surface, and exited orbit soon after. Re-entering the Earth's atmosphere on July 24th, the three astronauts landed in the Pacific Ocean near Johnston Atoll. Once recovered by the US Navy, they were put under quarantine for any possible Moon diseases, and were later transferred to the Johnson Space Center for observation. Watching the international fanfare on TV from quarantine, Aldrin remarked, "Look. We missed the whole thing."

    After eighteen days in quarantine, the astronauts began a thirty-eight day international tour, having leapt into history.

    Moon Landing - Copy.jpg

    "One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin's Apollo 11's moon landing was one of the most important events of 1969 and world history.
    McCarthy's first year as president was a year of prominent successes and underlying controversies. An unprecedented amount of turnover had happened in Congress' leadership under his watch: In the Senate, McCarthy's friend Edmund Muskie had been able to seize the position of Senate Majority Whip Russell Long without compromising the President's close working relationship with the South; in the House pro-McCarthy insurgent Mo Udall managed to topple the Speaker of the House, John William McCormack. While Udall failed to attain the Speakership, his bold challenge secured him the position of House Majority Whip, and replaced the already liberal McCormack with an even more liberal alternative in the form of James G. O'Hara. McCarthy's followers were again able to remove a traditionally Southern backed senior politician without alienating the South.

    On the Supreme Court, McCarthy made three appointments in one year, elevating the liberal Associate Justice William J. Brennan Jr. to the position of Chief Justice, while also appointing the moderate Homer Thornberry, and replacing the liberal Abe Fortas, who resigned amidst scandal, with the liberal sociologist David Riesman.

    Legislatively, McCarthy began to implement his New Politics program in the form of the Four New Civil Rights. Great strides were made in passing a guaranteed minimum income and beginning construction on millions of low cost houses that would accommodate historically impoverished groups. Despite the President's general lack of interest in the subject, environmental policy also began to take centre stage.
    With the adoption of the Gavin Plan, McCarthy made great strides in bringing the Vietnam War to an end. A ceasefire had been negotiated by the end of the year, with full American withdrawal scheduled for the end of 1970.

    However, it is worth noting that in all of these issues, McCarthy had enjoyed an extraordinary amount of luck. If Long had been more popular among his Southern colleagues, or if a Southern Democrat had tried to run for Speaker, the fragile alliance between liberals and Southerners could well have smashed to pieces. Likewise, due to Fortas withdrawing his name from consideration for Chief Justice in 1968, McCarthy did not appoint him to the position in 1969, thereby avoiding being caught up in his scandalous resignation. Additionally, McCarthy's adherence to congressional supremacy could have easily ruined his landmark legislative proposals, but a mix of good timing and the efforts of congressional liberals like Fred Harris pulled him through. Likewise, the Gavin Plan had only succeeded due the inadaptability of the North Vietnamese military; if the North Vietnamese had changed tactics sooner, the Gavin Plan could well have been a disaster.

    An escalating culture war was also unfolding to McCarthy's disadvantage. Increasingly radical leftist groups like Students for a Democratic Society and the Weathermen were turning to domestic terrorism, even with one of the furthest left presidents in American history in office. Conservative authority figures and police crackdowns were overwhelmingly popular with America's white majority, and while McCarthy was still popular with this main group, his seeming unwillingness to distance himself from the radical left had begun to raise eyebrows. McCarthy's key demographic of the white suburban middle class were also still waiting on their promised lower taxes and lower inflation.

    Despite all this, McCarthy's first year in office was, for the most part, a huge success, but in many ways his presidency would be similar to the Moon landing: a miraculous ascent followed by an inevitable crash back down to Earth.



    [1] IOTL, while Muskie was personally more inclined to the peace plank, he was a vocal supporter of the pro-administration plank. Muskie apparently believed it was unwise to make such a public break from the incumbent Democratic president, while a more cynical interpretation being that he was trying to grab the vice presidential nomination, which he did. McCarthy never forgave Muskie, and ran an incredibly aggressive, mud-slinging campaign against him in the 1972 Democratic primaries. Despite this, in their only head-to-head match-up, in the Illinois primary, Muskie beat McCarthy by a nearly two-to-one margin. ITTL, with Humphrey having supported the peace plank, Muskie sensed which way the political wind was blowing and supported the peace plank as well. Because of this, the McCarthy-Muskie friendship remained intact.

    [2] IOTL, Muskie got a taste for presidential politics as Humphrey's running mate. Planning his 1972 presidential run, he considered running for Majority Whip, but did not want to be tied to Washington D.C. by taking the position, leaving the challenge open to Ted Kennedy's successful leadership challenge against Long. ITTL, with the extra responsibility of taking care of his grievously injured brother Bobby, and with Muskie preempting his decision, he has decided to support the Senator from Maine instead.

    [3] IOTL, McCarthy refused to back Muskie in the event that he had run for Majority Whip, and voted for Long when Kennedy made his challenge, describing him as “about as liberal on most issues as anybody in the Senate.” ITTL, with their friendship not spoiled, McCarthy has declared neutrality instead of openly supporting Long. The quotation above was what McCarthy said to Kennedy.

    [4] Like IOTL, Boggs ultimately decided not to run for the Speakership in 1969. However, unlike IOTL, he does not rally the Louisiana delegation to McCormack, as he is hesitating to wait for McCarthy's reaction and eyeing the possibility of being appointed Director of the FBI.

    [5] It was frequently speculated by Albert's colleagues in the late 1960s that the reason he hesitated to challenge McCormack was because he had recently suffered a heart attack and was unsure about his own health.

    [6] IOTL, McCormack easily won, with a vote of one hundred and seventy-eight to fifty-eight. ITTL, McCarthy served as the wild card that stopped most representatives from pledging early support to McCormack before Udall even declared his candidacy.

    [7] While Udall was personally a supporter of labour unions and opposed to right-to-work legislation, he voted for it because it was overwhelmingly popular amongst his constituents.

    [8] IOTL, O'Hara was an unsuccessful candidate for the position of Majority Leader in 1971, losing to Boggs.

    [9] During the events of Chicago, President Johnson had felt that Albert had not been adequately keeping the protestors under control, and had ordered Rostenkowski to take over the podium at one point. Albert took it as a personal affront, and went out of his way to put roadblocks in Rostenkowski's career for the rest of his time as Majority Leader. ITTL, that has manifested by actively discouring people to vote for him for the Speakership.

    [10] IOTL, Scott narrowly defeated Hruska for the position of Minority Whip.

    [11] IOTL, Hatfield remarked to the press that if Nixon had kept the same position on the Vietnam War while running against an anti-war Democrat, then he would have voted for the anti-war Democrat. He also admitted that he wore a McCarthy campaign pin during the Oregon primary and met with his campaign at least once. Following Humphrey’s nomination, Hatfield supported Nixon.

    [12] Ironically, Scott’s voting record while Minority Leader in the mid-1970s was to the right of the Minority Whip, Robert Griffin of Michigan, despite the fact that Scott was associated with the progressives and Griffin with the conservatives.

    [13] Laird was chosen as Nixon’s Secretary of Defense and left his position as Conference Chair. The progressives quickly mobilized and had the moderate John Anderson of Illinois voted in as his replacement over the conservative choice, Jackson E. Betts of Ohio.

    [14] Following Bobby Kennedy’s assassination, Nelson Rockefeller chose Goodell as his replacement by his authority of Governor of New York. With Goodell’s absence from the House, the party’s conservatives failed to abolish P & R entirely, but stripped it of most of its powers. In the ensuing vote to decide the new Chair, Rumsfeld was defeated seventy-six to seventy-four by the choice of the conservatives, Robert Taft Jr. of Ohio.

    [15] William Douglas, William Brennan Jr., Abe Fortas and Thurgood Marshall for the liberals; Hugo Black, Potter Stewart, Byron White, and Homer Thornberry for the moderates; John Harlan II as the sole conservative.

    [16] This is the same as Nixon’s OTL Family Assistance Plan (FAP) which was also created by Moynihan in his role as White House Urban Affairs Advisor.

    [17] IOTL, Nixon had FAP introduced to the House first.

    [18] IOTL, the FAP failed in the Senate Finance Committee in 1970 by a vote of ten to six. Voting in favour were Russell Long, J. William Fulbright, Abraham Ribicoff, Wallace Bennett, Jack Miller, and Len Jordan. Voting against were Clinton Anderson, Albert Gore, Herman Talmadge, Eugene McCarthy, Fred Harris, Harry Byrd Jr., John Williams, Carl Curtis, Paul Fannin, and Clifford Hansen. Senator Vance Hartke did not vote. Notably, many liberal Democrats who voted for the AIA ITTL voted against the FAP IOTL, including McCarthy himself! This was because McCarthy considered the FAP much too weak, and many liberal Democrats were trying to curry favour with the NWRO for planned 1972 presidential bids by doggedly sticking to their plan. In the Senate, McCarthy put forward the AIA in reaction to the FAP, remarking that work incentives were “not conductive to freedom and self-respect of those who must use the system to survive” and if his proposal was unrealistic, then “the same may be said about the amounts provided under the proposals of President Nixon.” McCarthy’s torpedoing of the FAP and his vote for Long for Majority Whip are generally considered to be the start of the erratic ‘kooky obscurity’ phase of his life. There have also been changes to the vote compared to OTL. The higher stipend caused the potentially favourable Republicans to vote against it, while Harry Byrd Jr., the swing vote ITTL, decided to support McCarthy due to his alliance with the South and his friendship with his late father, Harry Byrd Sr. Replacing McCarthy and Fulbright on the Finance Committee ITTL are William Proxmire and John J. Gilligan, while Gordon Allot replaced Everett Dirksen.

    [19] IOTL, McCarthy circumvented Long’s rejection of the NWRO’s request to be present at a hearing by holding his own impromptu hearings in his office. Reporters and half a dozen senators attended – all liberal Democrats – as an entourage of mothers on welfare provided testimony. It did not go well. One mother compared Nixon to a slave driver, and another remarked that Ted Kennedy could kiss her ass, among other insults. Fortunately, the court reporter was partially deaf and did not catch most of the testimony, so the remarked did not become widely publicized. While McCarthy admitted “it was kind of a comedy,” but used the gist of the testimonies as the basis for his opposition to the FAP, claiming that it was discriminatory against single mothers as they would have to work a low-paying job to be eligible, which would not leave them with enough time to care for their children. McCarthy’s opposition to FAP convinced many of the other liberals to oppose it, resulting in its defeat, and ultimately killing the first serious guaranteed income proposal in modern history.
     
    Last edited:
    The Decline of the Hippie and the Rise of the Cleagie: Woodstock, Manson, and Altamont
  • The Decline of the Hippie and the Rise of the Cleagie: Woodstock, Manson, and Altamont

    1969 was the beginning of the end for hippie culture, reaching its high point with the Woodstock musical festival, before entering into a rapid decline following the murders committed by the Manson Family death cult, and the chaos of the Altamont Speedway Free Festival. But, in many ways, the decline of hippie culture also laid the groundwork for America's next youth movement.

    1969 had been a year of outdoor music festivals. Beginning with late June’s Newport Pop Festival in Northridge, California, and the Denver Pop Festival a few weeks later. Star performers who appeared at one of the festivals (or sometimes both of them) included The Jimi Hendrix Experience, Booker T. & the MGs, Frank Zappa & the Mothers of Invention, Three Dog Night, and Creedance Clearwater Revival, among others. The Newport Pop Festival had already managed to break the record for highest attendance for an outdoor music festival, with one hundred and fifty thousand people in attendance. However, both festivals had seen riots as thousands of people tried to break in to the performance grounds, and at the Newport show, fans tried to overrun the stage during Hendrix's second performance. Music festival unruliness continued in July's Newport Jazz Festival in Rhode Island, and early August's festival at the Atlantic City Race Track. By mid-1969, music festivals had become associated with disorderly mobs of hippies who ruined things for everyone else. That is why, under heavy public pressure from the local community, the Wallkill Zoning Board of Wallkill, New York, withdrew permission for Woodstock Ventures, Incorporated to host a musical festival in the city. The town of Woodstock, in upstate New York, had become the counterculture music community's best kept secret. Musicians like Bob Dylan, Paul Butterfield, and Van Morrison had moved to the town, and Hendrix had moved to the nearby community of Shokan, New York. Many musicians, band managers, and studio directors had moved to the area as an out of the way locale to brainstorm new music. Hoping to build off of the budding artistic movement in the area, concert producer Michael Lang and Capitol Records executive Artie Kornfeld joined forces with the venture capitalist Joel Rosenman and the investor John Roberts to hold a music festival in the area, as a springboard for a future music studio. With fifty thousand tickets already sold and with only four weeks to go to the festival, Woodstock Ventures had to quickly find a new venue. Fortunately, Lang was quickly able to find a replacement in the form of a six hundred acre dairy farm owned by one Max Yasgur in the town of Bethel, New York. Yasgur had previously allowed groups to use his land for special events, and was willing to host Woodstock Ventures. Relocating their infrastructure, final preparations were made for the Woodstock Music and Arts Fair.

    Enjoying broad media coverage due to the advertising budget of its wealthy backers and the potential for controversy, Woodstock started to become a phenomenon. Just as the inhabitants of Wallkill had foreseen and sought to avoid, thousands of hippies began pouring in from across the country. Several thousand cars were backed up along the back roads of the area, causing the biggest traffic jam in the history of upstate New York. Many simply decided to abandon their cars in the middle of the road, walking the rest of the way to the festival. Ironically, due to the number of people who did this, along with a mass influx of festival-goers who had not purchased tickets, several hundred people who had actually paid were unable to reach Woodstock. Deciding it would be impossible to limit attendance to paying customers, Lang and Kornfeld decided to make the whole thing free, to the horror of their financial advisors.

    With the opening act stuck in traffic and storm clouds on the horizon, Lang instead had the folksinger Richie Havens start the show a little after 5:00 p.m on Friday, August 15th.

    Trying to shift around the performance schedule to best accommodate the acts and the general lack of preparedness, most of the first day of Woodstock were folksingers and acoustic groups. After a performance by Havens, the original opening act, Sweetwater, finally arrived and performed their set, followed by Bert Sommer, and Tim Hardin. By that point, it had begun to rain, and shorter sets by Ravi Shankar, Melanie, Arlo Guthrie, and Joan Baez were performed. Baez, who that same year had also appeared at other music festivals and on the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour, dedicated her performance to her husband, who had been arrested for draft dodging, but whose case was in all likelihood to be thrown out due to the temporary moratorium the government had put in place on the draft, and the expected imminent end of the Vietnam War. Ending with the civil rights ballad We Shall Overcome, the audience eventually went to sleep in a mix of tents, sleeping bags, tepees, and vans. Dampening the mood, a downpour of rain overnight guaranteed a thick layer of mud that enveloped the festival grounds for the rest of the occasion.

    Before the first day was even over, a countercultural ecosystem had sprung up around the main stage, including a political activist booths, food services, a Native American art exhibit, and drug dealerships. Saturday's performances began with the band Quill, and went on from there, including Country Joe McDonald and The Fish, and John Sebastian. Performances continued on in the late afternoon and the evening with more established rock and jazz-fusion groups, with Santana, the Incredible String Band, Canned Heat, the Grateful Dead, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Janis Joplin, Sly & the Family Stone, and the Who. Around the time of the Grateful Dead's performance an unofficial intermission occurred, as the stage was approaching collapse, and the sound equipment was short-circuiting from the heavy wind and rain. The Who went late into the night performing the entirety of their rock ballad Tommy, during which Abbie Hoffman of the surrealist Youth International Party tried to seize the stage to make a political statement before being beaten back by lead guitarist Pete Townshend. By the time the Saturday performers officially ended with Jefferson Airplane, it was already Sunday dawn. While thousands had been driven off by the pouring rain and poor conditions, the show went on with Joe Cocker and the Grease Band, followed by Mountain, Ten Years After, The Band, Johnny Winter, Blood, Sweat & Tears, and Crosby, Stills, and Nash. By Monday, the festival had begun to crash hard. With an estimated peak attendance of four hundred thousand, there were only around fifty thousand by then. The Paul Butterfield Band, and Sha Na Na both perfored before making way for the final headline act: Jimi Hendrix. Having re-branded from the Jimi Hendrix Experience, to Gypsy, Sun and Rainbow, Hendrix and his band closed Woodstock with a two hour set that notably included an anti-war experimental version of “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

    Woodstock would become a lightning-in-a-bottle moment for the counterculture movement. Nearly half a million people had gathered without any major destruction, but many people agreed the organization and infrastructure for it had been a total mess. Despite attempts to recapture the magic of the occasion, hippie culture never again got as high as Woodstock.

    Woodstock Ventures' plan to popularize the area did far too well for its own good. A massive rush of new residents looking to tap in to the local music scene followed, and many of the musicians who first inspired the festival, feeling crowded, moved away.

    John Sebastien Woodstock.jpg

    John Sebastian performing at the Woodstock music festival. Woodstock would become one of the most famous musical and cultural events of American history.

    The hippie ideal of commune living and mutual aid witnessed a twisted subversion with the events surrounding Charles Manson and his Manson Family.

    Charles Manson was a charismatic small time criminal with delusions of grandeur, having spent time in jail for car theft, pimping, violating probation, and forgery. Moving to California in 1967, he had developed an extended social circle which he called "the Family" by preying on the emotional vulnerabilities of young women. Taking inspiration from bizarre West Coast religious groups like the Jesus freaks, the Scientologists, and the Church of Satan, Manson began to develop his own semi-religious cult mysticism that involved free love (probably to justify his harem-like relationship with much of the Family), biblical prophetic visions of the apocalypse, and, according to some, a master plan to incite a race war in the United States according to subliminal messages hidden in the music of The Beatles. Temporarily living in the mansion of Dennis Wilson of the rock band the Beach Boys, the Manson Family was eventually kicked out. They then re-located to Spahn's Movie Ranch, an abandoned set that had once been used for shooting western movies with middling budgets.

    The first murder committed by the Manson Family was against Gary Hinman, a music teacher and sociology student who was also a evangelical Buddhist and drug dealer. Refusing Manson's increasingly insistent demands to join the Manson Family and also refusing to give him drugs or money, in late July of 1969, Manson sent his followers to get money from Hinman then kill him. Despite torturing him for several days, Hinman refused to cooperate, and was eventually killed either implicitly or explicitly on Manson's orders. “POLITICAL PIGGY” was written in Hinman's blood on the wall over his dead body. This was apparently done to trick the police into thinking he was killed by a black gang, as part of Manson's supposed race war master plan, which he tended to refer to as 'Helter Skelter,' after a Beatles song of the same name. Bobby Beausoleil, one of the members of the Manson Family who had killed Hinman, fled the commune while Manson was away in early August, using one of the cars the Family had stolen from their victim. Beausoleil was quickly captured by the California Highway Patrol under suspicion for Hinman's murder, but he was not immediately tied to the other Manson killings that would soon follow.

    Declaring “Now is the time for Helter Skelter,” it is unclear who the next victim of Manson's apocalyptic bloodlust was intended to be. The Family targeted the home of Terry Melcher, a record producer who had refused to sign a recording contract with Manson, but Melcher had recently moved out; it had since been leased to director Roman Polanski and his wife Sharon Tate. Staking out the house on the night of August 8th, four members of the Family – Susan Atkins, Tex Watson, Linda Kasabian, and Patricia Krenwinkel – murdered Steven Parent, a young man who was visiting the groundskeeper, William Garretson, who lived in a back house off from the main property. Moving in on the main house, the Manson Family quickly rounded up Tate, who was eight and a half months pregnant, along with family friends Jay Sebring, Wojciech Frykowski, and Abigail Folger, who were all visiting at the time. Polanski himself was in England for a film shoot. All of the house's inhabitants would be killed, with dozens of stab wounds between them. Manson's followers would also kill Leno and Rosemary LaBianca soon after. The LaBiancas had lived next door to a party house that the Manson Family had attended the previous year. With initial media coverage indicating the Tate murder was caused by some sort of drug-fueled ritualistic massacre, locals began to look on the hippie community with extreme suspicion. The photographer David Strick recalled that before the Manson killings parties were very open in the area, and “That's why people could see hippies they've never seen before walking in and out of their wealthy houses and not think they were going to kill them.” The panic following the Manson Family's killing spree contributed to the downfall of hippie culture as a whole.

    Pending an investigation, warrants were eventually put out for members of the Family. Manson himself would also eventually be arrested, but a trial was not held until 1970. The murderers were sentenced to death, but the charges would later be changed to a life sentence following a California Supreme Court ruling on the death penalty, and the criminal justice process would not completely resolve the case until 1971.

    Charles Manson arrested.jpg

    Arrested in 1969, Charles Manson and his Manson Family commune/cult were responsible for a series of murders based on his apocalyptic visions of a race war.

    Trying to recapture the zeitgeist moment of Woodstock, plans were set into motion to do a follow-up . After complaints that their tickets cost too much money, the Rolling Stones agreed to do a free concert in California on the suggestion of The Grateful Dead and their manager, and it was quickly dubbed Woodstock West. The initial plan was to hold it at Golden Gate Park on Saturday, December 6th 1969, and many other bands began to show interest. However, a permit was not secured for the park, nor was one secured for the back-up location at Sears Point Raceway. With only two days to the festival, Woodstock West eventually settled on the Altamont Speedway race track, whose owner offered free use. Eventually, up to three hundred and fifty thousand people arrived at the Altamont Speedway Free Festival for what was expected to be the last big music event of the year. Apparently not aware of the difference between the American Hell's Angels biker gang and their much more tame English counterparts, the Rolling Stones' tour manager, Sam Cutler, informally hired them as security for the venue. Things starting going wrong during Jefferson Airplane's set, when a fight broke out between the Hell's Angels and the hippies near the front of the stage, with things escalating when the Hell's Angels knocked out Jefferson Airplane's lead singer. Other performances were similarly interrupted by violence. In the middle of the Rolling Stones' performance of "Sympathy for the Devil," things went from bad to worse when someone bumped a Hell's Angels' bike into a battery post attached to a fuel tank, causing a small explosion, and destroying the bike. The band's attempts to restart the song failed as the chaos spread, and one man, Meredith Hunter, was killed in a fight with some of the bikers. A high estimate put the number of people injured at eight hundred in fifty. Described by one later historian "The Hippie Apocalypse," Altamont brought a dreary end to the 1960s.

    Altamont - Copy.jpg

    Held in December of 1969 in an attempt to re-capture the magic of Woodstock, Altamont turned in to a disaster following frequent fighting in the audience between hippies and members of the Hell's Angels motorcycle gang.

    It was not long into the 1970s before the hippies became a smaller and smaller part of the popular consciousness. Eventually, the counterculture movement was partially absorbed into the mainstream in the social schizophrenia of the coming decade. However, the decline of the hippies did leave an opening for a new youth movement. Described by demographic analysts of the early 1970s as the 'McCarthy Cohort' or the 'Clean Gene Generation,' a new group began to emerge from the followers of President McCarthy. Made up of those who had volunteered for him during his presidential campaign, or those who became enthusiasts in the early years of his administration, this group was made up of millions of students and young people who were typically the white college-educated children of the suburban middle class. Politically active, preppy, generally accepted by the mainstream, socially and economically liberal, and eventually earning a reputation for intellectualism, political puritanism, and snobbery, the millions of members of the Clean Gene Generation (or the Cleagies for short), would rise to prominence in the early 1970s, eventually becoming the young urban professionals of the 1980s.
     
    Last edited:
    Chapter Eight - We've Only Just Begun
  • Chapter Eight – We’ve Only Just Begun

    Described by some as the peak of post-war American liberalism, 1970 saw significant developments both domestically and internationally. South Vietnam was preparing for what was expected to be its first fully democratic election, while American forces were withdrawing from the region. Back home, McCarthy had fulfilled what many voters considered his most important campaign promise by cutting taxes. More accurately, he had allowed a late Johnson-era ten percent surcharge increase on the income tax to expire [1]. Instead, slashing cuts to the Vietnam War budget had been used for the initial payments of McCarthy’s landmark proposals for a guaranteed minimum income, and a massive expansion of low-cost suburban housing. Likewise, while riots and protests were still relatively common, they were occurring at a much lower rate than they had under Johnson, which Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Daniel Patrick Moynihan attributed to a “benign neglect,” with the government making no great calls for activism or demands for involvement on the part of the public. Over the last ten years and three Democratic administrations, Kennedy’s call to action had been replaced with a muted technocratic bureaucracy. Perhaps it was no surprise then that polling indicated that the public was overwhelmingly apathetic to the McCarthy Administration. While the President himself had a stable approval rating that hovered at around sixty-five percent (and approaching an unheard-of ninety percent with teenagers and twentysomethings), none of McCarthy’s legislation or particular decisions had extraordinarily high approval, and his support was based more on what he was not doing than what he was. Because of this, congressional Democrats were nervously awaiting direction to pass some popular and easy-to-understand legislation to better their chances in the upcoming midterm elections. Fortunately for them, the legislation they were waiting for arrived, coming from, of all places, Nigeria.

    In 1970, the Nigerian Civil War between the federal government and the breakaway state of Biafra concluded with the latter’s surrender, after a failed attempt at independence. The roots of the conflict went back to 1914, when Nigeria had been created by the British in a consolidation of their regional colonial conquests, which had begun in the area as early as the 1860s. The British had ruled what would become Nigeria through the Hausa-Fulani, a prominent local ethnic group who they used as their proxies. Predominantly from northern Nigeria, the Hausa-Fulani were a Muslim group who were governed by a series of hereditary autocrats known as emirs. In exchange for political loyalty and control of the colony’s military (which one observer described as a “glorified police force” designed to quell domestic unrest), the Hausa-Fulani had been made exempt from cultural imperialism, and Christian missionaries were barred from the area by the British. Meanwhile, the Yoruba of southwestern Nigeria, and the Igbo of southeastern Nigeria had been subject to direct rule and directly exposed to British cultural, social, and religious assimilation. The Igbo in particular took to Christianity and the British colonial bureaucracy, somewhat naïvely believing that they would one day be treated as equals. Indeed, the Igbo did start receiving special attention from the British after huge oil deposits were discovered in the river deltas of their ancestral homeland in the southeast, but it was nothing approaching equality. The end result was that by the time Nigeria gained its independence in 1960, the Hausa-Fulani were still the most powerful ethnicity, despite have been under a British-encouraged arrested development since the 1800s, while the Igbo were marginalized despite having the most ‘modernized’ society borne out of prolonged exposure to British education and governance. A highly decentralized federal model had been created to discourage interethnic strife, but it had not lasted for long, as the three major ethnicities (and the hundreds of minor ones) were constantly concerned that another group would try to rig the nascent democracy in their favour. These fears were proven prescient, as the Hausa-Fulani Northern People’s Congress (NPC) won the country’s first elections in 1964, but amid widespread accusations of fraud, and violent crackdowns against smaller ethnic groups by the predominantly Hausa-Fulani military. Still working with the Hausa-Fulani through the NPC, the British continued to have immense economic influence over the country, reaping gargantuan profits from the Nigerian oil industry, which they still had a controlling share in in the form of the United Africa Company and the Shell-BP Petroleum Development Company. In 1966, a group of middle-ranking Igbo officers in the Nigerian army launched a coup, executing Prime Minister Abubakar Balewa and most of the government (with the notable exception of President Nwafor Orizu, an ethnic Igbo who was coincidently out of the country at the time). In what many non-Igbo considered to be a planned double-coup, General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi – an Igbo himself – defeated the rebelling Igbo officers unusually quickly, before President Orizu officially bequeathed to him the powers of Head of State. Less than half a year later, a majority Hausa-Fulani counter-coup was launched which killed Aguiyi-Ironsi, and put General Yakuba Gowon in power as military dictator. Following the counter-coup, tens of thousands of Igbo were killed in the north by lynch mobs. Trying to end the violence, Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, an Igbo and the military governor of southeast Nigeria, reached an agreement with Head of State Gowon to further decentralize the country. However, Gowon quickly backed out of the deal, and jerrymandered the different states of southeast Nigeria to separate the Igbo from the oil deposits, prompting Odumegwu-Ojukwu to declare an independent Igbo ethno-state in 1967 named the Republic of Biafra. After a brief hesitation, the United Kingdom began supplying Gowon and the federal government with all the military equipment they needed in return for keeping British control of the oil industry intact. With British support, the Nigerians quickly took control of the coastal oil facilities that might have otherwise financed an independent Biafra, and began a blockade of the rebel state with the intention of starving them out. Quickly becoming a humanitarian cause célèbre, Biafra received broad international sympathy, but very little official recognition, as most countries were reluctant to contest the United Kingdom’s sphere of influence. A vocal supporter of Biafra, President McCarthy passed an official recognition of the aspiring nation through Congress in 1969 and supplied a large influx of humanitarian aid, but attempts by US Ambassador to the UN Chester Bowles’ attempts to thoroughly address the situation in the United Nations were quashed by the British veto. Additionally, frequent purges of the officer corps and, ironically, of non-Igbo ethnic minorities in Biafra weakened their position, and it was overrun soon after [2]. Military casualties were estimated to be as high as one hundred thousand, but the vast majority of those killed in the conflict were Biafran civilians who had starved to death due to the Nigerian blockade. Estimates of the casualties of the famine placed the death toll at two million, and several million more displaced.

    Outraged by the humanitarian disaster that followed in the wake of the Nigerian Civil War, President McCarthy proposed a massive new foreign aid program that he planned to tie to domestic agricultural production.

    For nearly his entire life, McCarthy had been enamoured by Medieval Christian concepts of mutual aid and rural living. Going well beyond the Jeffersonian belief in the virtues of the independent farmer, McCarthy genuinely believed that the thirteenth century was the peak of human civilization. This devotion to Medieval civilization had inspired his brief stint as a monk in his younger days, as well as a failed attempt by the newly-wed McCarthys and a few of their friends to create a semi-collectivized agrarian commune in rural Minnesota in the 1940s.

    Crafting a leviathan piece of intersectional legislation, the Agricultural Ownership and Employment Protection Act (AOEPA, or simply the Agricultural Act) came into being. McCarthy’s proposal was a multi-faceted program that would simultaneously help small farm owners, protect migrant workers, expand the food stamp program, and increase foreign aid.

    For farmers, it would continue the ‘ever-normal granary’ program that had been instituted by Secretary of Agriculture (and later Vice President) Henry A. Wallace during the Franklin Roosevelt Administration. During the Great Depression, agricultural prices had collapsed to such an extent that farmers were burning much of their crop in a last-ditch effort to raise prices by decreasing supply. In a successful attempt to stabilize the market, Wallace had proposed that the government buy produce at a fixed rate, and at a loss if necessary, to keep farmers in business. While critics complained that it encouraged over-production and reliance on the government, even most laissez-faire fiscal conservatives were unwilling to invoke the wrath of rural constituencies nationwide by abolishing the program, and the ever-normal granary had survived into the 1970s. Beyond continuing the ever-normal granary, the Agriculture Act would also offer low interest or no interest loans to farmer families, as well as to urban families willing to move out to the country to start a farm. A program to sell federally-owned land in areas where arable land was not cheaply available was also introduced as part of the bill [3].

    The plight of Mexican migrant workers had also been a persistent interest of McCarthy’s during his time in the Senate, despite his frosty relationship with Latino community leaders during the 1968 Democratic presidential primaries. Copying failed legislation that he had previously proposed, the Agriculture Act made it illegal for agricultural companies to provide benefits or pay less than what a local American citizen would receive working the same job. As a trade-off, McCarthy agreed to much stricter border controls, a position he was not opposed to anyway [4].

    As for the humanitarian components, the grants given to each individual in the food stamp program was increased, and a greater portion of the government’s ever-normal granary surplus would be diverted to foreign aid.

    The Agriculture Act was supported by an eclectic mix of the cabinet. Secretary of Agriculture William R. Poage was very much in favour of the expanded benefits for farmers, but was ambivalent to the migrant worker provisions and was uninterested in the food stamp and foreign aid components. Dismissing the idea that there was genuine starvation in America despite the widespread publicization of that very crisis in Senators Bobby Kennedy and Joseph Clark’s tour of the Mississippi Delta in 1967, Poage remarked “The basic problem is one of ignorance as to what constitutes a balanced diet, coupled with indifference by a great many persons who should and probably do not know.” Secretary of Labor Hubert Humphrey was more invested in the Agriculture Act, both out of personal interest on the issue of malnutrition, and as something he could tout on the campaign trail for his plans to run in the year’s Senate election in Minnesota. Secretary of the Interior Ernest Gruening was also involved in the process, due to the land sale provision.

    The legislation was officially introduced into the Senate by George McGovern of South Dakota, Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. Allen Ellender of Louisiana, Chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, acted as the unofficial whip for the bill. Representing the coming together of interests in the Democratic Party, both McGovern and Ellender had come to support McCarthy at the Democratic National Convention two years prior.

    In its simplest interpretation, the Agriculture Act was exactly the kind of pork barrel legislation that members of Congress from rural areas, both Democratic and Republican, were looking for in an election year, and it breezed through the House and Senate in the summer of 1970 with broad support.

    Invoking Biafra by name while signing it the Agriculture Act into law, the Nigerian Civil War became the impetus for both an overhaul of American agricultural production, and a cause of strain in the British-American “special relationship” for the rest of McCarthy’s presidency. By 1971, cargo haulers full of grain were making their way to the Sahel region of Africa, which had been by meteorologists noted as particularly vulnerable to an oncoming drought.

    McCarthy With a Farmer.jpg

    Agrarian Idyll: Eugene McCarthy had a longstanding affection for rural living, which was reflected in his Agriculture Act.

    Meanwhile, a series of investigations into the Mỹ Lai Massacre had begun. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff David M. Shoup had appointed General William R. Peers to investigate the massacre, and to follow up with an investigation of other similar war crimes that might have been covered up. At the same time, the Department of Defense under Secretary of Defense James Gavin created the Vietnam War Crimes Working Group (VWCWG), which was to cast a broader investigative net. However, despite these two separate investigations, the matter was complicated by L. Mendel Rivers of South Carolina, Chair of the House Armed Services Committee. The self-described “Grandaddy of the War Hawks,” Rivers was firmly committed to the Vietnam war, and believed that Mỹ Lai was a hoax designed to ruin American morale. In March of 1969, Rivers had received a letter by infantryman Ronald L. Ridenhour, who had claimed to have gathered substantial evidence on the massacre, and asked Congress to investigate. Rivers ignored the letter, despite a request from House Majority Whip Mo Udall to look in to it. After Seymour Hersh had revealed the Mỹ Lai Massacre to the public in November of 1969, it had naturally fallen to Rivers to lead an investigation in his position of Chair of the House Armed Services Committee. Intentionally dragging his feet and publicly claiming the massacre was fake or some kind of conspiracy, Rivers’ efforts to protect the accused soldiers backfired, as Speaker of the House James G. O’Hara and House Majority Whip Mo Udall agreed to separate Rivers from the congressional investigation. The newly created Temporary Committee to Investigate Alleged War Crimes was chaired by Charles E. Bennett of Florida, the sixth-highest ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. Following his appointment, it became more commonly known as the Bennett Committee. While a Vietnam hawk, O’Hara and Udall believed that Bennett had the legitimacy needed to chair such an investigation, considering he was a handicapped veteran known for excessive honesty [5]. Particularly damning was the testimony of Hugh Thompson Jr. and Lawrence Colburn, a helicopter crew who had tried to intervene in the massacre, airlifting civilians out of the area and threatening to fire on their fellow soldiers if they persisted. Thompson in particular became a star witness of the Bennett Committee, and he and his crew would receive the Soldier’s Medal soon after, granted for “Distinguishing oneself by heroism not involving actual conflict with an enemy [6].” Further testimony by Daniel Ellsberg, who had revealed the Pentagon Papers the previous year before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was also added to the case. Ellsberg made the Bennett Committee aware of a two hundred page report on “Alleged Atrocities by U.S. Military Forces in South Vietnam” that had created in 1967 on the orders of then-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, revealing that – if even a minority of the accusations were true – that there was a long pattern of war crimes perpetrated by American forces during the war.

    By the time the Bennett Committee issued its final report, there was more than enough evidence to convict dozens of men for war crimes, including, among others, Second Lieutenant William Calley, who Seymour Hersh had first pursued in his hunt to uncover Mỹ Lai, and Captain Ernest Medina, who had been the commanding officer on the ground during the massacre. The guilty war crimes verdicts typically included life sentences with hard labour. Those in the leadership of the Americal Division who did not directly participate in the massacre but who were accused of either covering up or being willfully ignorant were blacklisted from any further advancement in the military, effectively ending the careers of the likes of Major General Samuel Koster and assistant chief of staff of operations Colin Powell [7].

    Taking advantage of the rare and very brief burst of anti-military sentiment among centrist voters following the conclusion of the Bennett Committee, McCarthy announced a moratorium on weapons sales, coming into effect in March of 1970. Since the Truman Administration, the United States Defense Department had been selling weaponry to their allies, and in many cases handing it out for free. Some of their biggest markets had been in South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia, where American-aligned dictatorships had used their supply to hunt down communist rebel groups and suppress dissent by protesters who preferred a non-aligned or even Soviet-aligned democracy to an American-aligned dictatorship. McCarthy believed that weapons sales encouraged allied dictatorships to continue their authoritarian rule, and thought that the possibility of a former ally drifting out of the American sphere was worth the risk of using soft power to try and force dictators to step down from power. Offhandedly dismissing criticisms that a halt on weapons sales would just cause dictators to buy weapons elsewhere and leave American influence while retaining power, McCarthy put the moratorium into effect. However, McCarthy did make exceptions for American allies he felt were in particularly precarious geopolitical positions, such as Israel, South Korea, and Thailand. Those weapons sales that did continue were placed firmly in the hands of the State Department, stripping the Defense Department and the CIA of their longstanding role in the international arms trade. At the same time, McCarthy put forward a motion that would formalize congressional oversight of the country’s foreign intelligence services in the form of a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The committee would be made up of three members each from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the Senate Appropriations Committee, to be appointed by the chairs of those three committees respectively. When first proposed by then-Senator McCarthy in 1966, the motion had failed miserably, due to CIA and FBI lobbying, and strong pushback from both Republican and Democratic hawks, who used a constitutionalist argument that foreign intelligence was under the purview of the executive office. Four years later, and with the executive office actively pushing for a devolution of powers to Congress, the hawks were out their strongest argument. With little reason for moderates to oppose it, the motion passed, over the complaints of its opponents, led by Senator Henry Jackson of Washington, one of Capitol Hill’s most famously hawkish Democrats. But, despite the establishment of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, McCarthy’s top-down efforts to reform the intelligence agencies had been stymied by internal resistance, and little real progress had been made.

    That same month, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which had been negotiated and signed by the Johnson Administration, came into effect. While mostly symbolic, the signatories of the NPT pledged to not transfer any nuclear weapons to a non-nuclear power or help them produce their own weapons, called for complete nuclear disarmament (without any particular deadline), and allowed for the continued peaceful use of nuclear energy. The ratification of the NPT brought hope to international observers of a new era of peaceful co-existence between the American and Soviet blocs. Sceptics remained unconvinced.

    Henry Jackson 1970.jpg

    Scoop: Senator Henry 'Scoop' Jackson was one of the most prominent hawks in Congress, and one of President McCarthy's most frequent critics.

    While progress had been made in the first three months of the year, the McCarthy Administration had been very nearly derailed in the fourth.

    Following the great success of the Apollo 11 Moon landing, NASA had continued with the program. In November of 1969, the astronauts of Apollo 12, Pete Conrad and Alan Bean, became the third and fourth man to walk on the Moon, while the command module pilot, Richard F. Gordon Jr., remained in orbit. Having proven that a Moon landing was possible with Apollo 11, and having proven that a precision landing was possible with Apollo 12, the next Moon landing, Apollo 13, was designed more of a scientific expedition than a practical test of engineering. The Apollo 13 team consisted of mission commander Jim Lovell, lunar module pilot Fred Haise, and command module pilot Ken Mattingly [8].

    Trying to meet a demanding deadline and expecting budget cuts in the next fiscal year, a series of small mistakes had been made in the construction of the launch rocket and module. With the launch underway on April 11th of 1970, one of the secondary engines shut down early due to excess pressure and vibrations. The other engines were boosted to compensate, and Apollo 13 began to make its way to the Moon. Once in space, it appeared that one of the pressure sensors on a module’s oxygen tanks was malfunctioning, so the tank’s fans were turned on to reset the pressure reading. Shortly after activating the fans, there was an exterior explosion, followed by a fuel leak and electrical drain. In mortal danger of being stranded in space, the mission was changed to getting back to Earth as quickly as possible. To that end, mission control decided that they would orbit the Moon, then use the lunar module’s propulsion engines to put them back on a trajectory with Earth, aiming for the Pacific Ocean, where they could be easily recovered. There was enough oxygen and water to meet the bare necessities of survival for the flight back to Earth, but the pellets designed to absorb carbon dioxide were not compatible between the different modules, and duct tape and plastic had to be used as a quick fix to force the different systems together. In order to preserve power, the lights and heating were turned off, leaving them in the dark at a temperature of three degrees Celsius (thirty-eight degrees Fahrenheit). After various course corrections, the lunar module was jettisoned, and the astronauts crash landed in Pacific Ocean. They were safely recovered by the USS Iwo Jima, with no injuries except for a urinary tract infection that Haise had gotten from a lack of hydration. Sticking to his trend of not bothering to attend to a crisis he had no way of fixing, McCarthy sent Vice President John Connally to meet the wayward astronauts in Honolulu.

    Unbeknownst to the astronauts, their story had become a media sensation, ironically much more so than a third Moon landing would have prompted. Apollo 13’s safe return was met with widespread celebrations, but it was exactly the kind of excuse McCarthy had been waiting for to siphon off NASA’s budget. Feelings that the billions spent on the space program could be better used back on Earth, McCarthy grounded the Apollo program indefinitely, citing safety concerns [9].

    Later in the month and back down on Earth, the impeachment inquiry into Supreme Court Associate Justice William O. Douglas reached its conclusion.

    Associate Justice Abe Fortas’ resignation in 1969 for questionable financial dealings following the threat of impeachment had led to further investigations into Fortas’ mentor, William Douglas. House Minority Leader Gerald Ford led the charge, with his main line of attack was the connection between Douglas and Albert Parvin. Douglas was the president of the Parvin Foundation, an obscure non-profit charity that was financed by Parvin, a multi-millionaire hotel supply salesman known was owning casinos with mob ties. However, with no clear cause of wrongdoing on Douglas’ part, the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee and an ally of Douglas’, Emanuel Celler, refused to broaden the inquiry. Stonewalled by the Democrat-controlled committees, Ford resorted to a moral argument, accusing Douglas of being unsuitable to the Supreme Court due to his defense of pornography, and for publishing articles in pornographic magazines. However, Ford was forced to admit that Douglas’ article was not pornographic itself, but claimed that it praised pornographic ideas, and “the social protest of left-wing folk singers.” Ford’s efforts were dismissed as petty by the House and the American public, and Douglas was cleared soon after, leaving the Supreme Court securely in liberal hands [10].

    Apollo 13 - Copy.jpg

    "Houston, we have a problem:" The near-disaster of Apollo 13 resulted in the indefinite halt of the Moon landing program.

    As the midterms grew closer and the primaries began, American political observers noted that theirs’ was not the only election of the year; in the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Harold Wilson was looking to win his third consecutive election, in Chile, a Marxist was the frontrunner, and in South Vietnam, the two leading candidates were neck and neck, though the latter two elections would not be held until September.

    Harold Wilson had had a difficult premiership, to say the least. Before the beginning of his tenure, the rival Conservative Party had governed for thirteen years, going through Prime Ministers Winston Churchill, Anthony Eden, Harold Macmillan, and Alec Douglas-Home in relatively quick succession. While the economy had been strong under the Conservatives, major scandals had weakened their support, and the national mood was turning against them. Running as a dynamic space age modernizer, the eternally optimistic Wilson had promised that the left wing Labour Party would usher in a new era of prosperity for Britain with the “white heat of technology,” and won a narrow majority in 1964 despite the good economic conditions. Once in power, Wilson and his cabinet realized that the economy was not nearly as good as they thought it was. The Conservatives had run up a massive deficit, and there was a massive loss of revenue pouring out of the country through a trade imbalance, with Britons buying cheaper foreign imports at a higher rate than British products were being purchased domestically and overseas. On top of that, the country was straining under the weight of the vestigial overseas expenditures of the British Empire, with troop deployments in the Middle East and Asia trying to counter a nationalist uprising in Yemen, and a communist rebellion and border skirmishes with Indonesia in Malaysia. All of these forces combined to put massive inflationary pressure on the British pound, which would decrease its value and hurt Labour’s working class base worst of all. The most obvious solutions were to devalue the pound and intentionally lower its value, or dismantle what was left of the empire to save on money, but Wilson was unwilling to consider either option, thinking them damaging to British international prestige. Wilson instead adopted a stopgap solution of austerity, price and wage controls, and high taxes to keep the pound’s value strong, and hoped that once the budget and trade deficits were eliminated that the pound would stabilize too. Doubling down against devaluation, Wilson specifically tied his career to keeping the pound strong. Generally referred to as the ‘sterling crises,’ Wilson had to frequently force his socialist party to implement fiscal austerity. Wilson was also beholden to the financial aid given by the United States to help keep the pound and British finances going, and was forced to quietly support the Vietnam War, despite the disapproval of his party and the British public. Distracted by the sterling crises and with less room in the budget than they had hoped, ambitious plans for nationalization of major industries, large corporate mergers, technological revolution, and a planned economy to be directed out of the new Department of Economic Affairs were all delayed. Wilson was also forced to devalue the pound anyway in 1967, while at the same time claiming that devaluing the pound would not actually decrease the domestic value of the pound, a statement which was widely mocked. Wilson had also been embarrassed by French President Charles de Gaulle vetoing the United Kingdom’s application to join the European Economic Community (EEC) free trade zone. By the late 1960s, Wilson had had to fend off numerous behind-the-scenes challenges to his leadership by his three most ambitious cabinet members, Deputy Leader George Brown, and Roy Jenkins and James Callaghan, who had both respectively served as Chancellor and Home Secretary. All three men were part of the ‘right’ of Labour, meaning they were more social democrats than democratic socialists. Wilson was initially associated with the party’s centre-left, but after various disputes with the country’s unions, he came to be seen as an ambiguously centrist political animal. Brown was not a major threat to Wilson’s position, as he had lost to Wilson in the previous leadership election, and was almost a farcical figure: he threatened to resign whenever a major decision did not go his way, and had the almost miraculous ability to stay in the cabinet despite frequent bizarre rants and occasional violent episodes caused by his alcoholism. Jenkins and Callaghan were both more credible threats, and Wilson played them off each other to prevent the other from getting in power. Wilson’s balancing act worked, but his caution bordered on the paranoid, and his cabinet battles and broken promises earned him a reputation with the public as an unprincipled manipulator.

    Despite all this, Wilson’s government had still had its accomplishments. He had won a sizable majority after calling a snap election in 1966, adeptly claiming credit for good economic conditions while blaming the then-recently-in-power Conservatives for the underlying problems. Throughout his premiership, economic growth had steadily marched on, unemployment remained low, and his much-maligned austerity did keep down inflation. Likewise, while his budgets were not nearly as ambitious as the party would have liked, Wilson still increased social security benefits, carried out the re-nationalization of the British steel industry, and increased housing and urban development. Wilson he had worked with social reformers in Labour and the Liberal Party to simplify divorce, legalize abortion, decriminalize homosexuality, and end the death penalty for most crimes, none of which were particularly popular at the time, but were quietly appreciated by many others. With Johnson out of office, Wilson hoped for a fresh start with President McCarthy, but he turned out to be a definitively mixed blessing; while Wilson was no longer beholden to support the Vietnam War and McCarthy was generous with financial aid, he was also insistent that Wilson should attempt to join the EEC again, as de Gaulle had resigned as President of France in April of 1969, and the two did not get along well on a personal level. Going into the general election in 1970, it would be a matter of convincing the British public that he had been successful enough to re-elect once again.

    Fortunately for Wilson and Labour, what had looked like a massacre a year earlier had dramatically swung in their favour. After years of deflationary measures and devaluation, the pound had finally stabilized and the trade deficit had been eliminated. Additionally, Wilson and Jenkins' budget for the fiscal year was widely praised for its restraint, and it appeared that the Prime Minister was on the verge of one of the greatest comebacks in British political history, to the dismay of his main opponent, Conservative leader Edward Heath. Torn between a June or October election, Wilson ultimately decided to call it during the former, as he believed that economic conditions had a chance of swinging against them by the time of the latter. However, Wilson was concerned over June's World Cup association football championship, as he had a superstitious belief that the fate of his government was tied to the success of Britain's team as a barometer of the national mood.

    Going ahead with June, Wilson enjoyed a rebound in popularity after years of running from crisis to crisis. Ignoring most issues, he instead ran on his image, the recently stabilized economy, and other positive economic indicators such as low unemployment and high wages. As for Heath, despite attempts to change his reputation, he frequently came off as stodgy, unapproachable, and bureaucratic, and he ran a doom and gloom campaign accusing Wilson of allowing runaway inflation to hurt the lower middle class. Heath particularly tailored his campaign to housewives, which was still the majority 'occupation' of British women, and were particularly vulnerable to rising prices without having an independent source of income. Fortunately for Wilson, any last minute surprises were avoided. The British team dispatched the West Germans in the World Cup quarterfinals after goalkeeper Peter Bonnetti caught a near-fumble, leaving the game's score at two to one [11]. On top of that, Wilson's sunny economic forecasting was vindicated by a report by Chancellor Jenkins on June 15th, three days before the election, which showed that the trade balance was still in surplus [12]. While Wilson and Labour were returned to power, it was not with the obliterating supermajority that many had predicted. Instead, they had returned with a diminished majority from their 1966 results, with many surprised by Heath's near-upset. Citing the close result, Heath attempted to stay on until a new leader could be chosen for the Conservative Party, but he was forced out in a pre-arranged agreement made by the party's senior bureaucracy, former Prime Minister Alec Douglas-Home, and the party's Chief Whip, William 'Willie' Whitelaw. Douglas-Home would return as an interim for the party, in order to remove the twice-defeated Heath as the public face of the party. Douglas-Home would not stand in the leadership race himself however, leaving it to someone younger instead [13].

    harold-wilson-1 - Copy.jpg

    "You know Labour government works: A self-styled modernizer, Prime Minister Harold Wilson and the Labour Party was narrowly re-elected in the United Kingdom's 1970 general election, despite numerous crises and intense controversy during his tenure.

    Back across the pond, McCarthy's legislative agenda continued. The Adequate Income Act, Federal Aid Housing Act, and the Agriculture Act were all making their way through Congress, and would all be ready to be signed into law by the end of the year. McCarthy was content with his progress in what he bizarrely considered his ultimate legislative goal: the dismantlement of the Great Society and the War on Poverty. While McCarthy had agreed in principle with Johnson's efforts to end poverty in the United States, he was very critical of his methods. At various points, he had called the Great Society “defeatist,” “a kind of hand-out public welfare approach,” “imposed on people,” and “not the kind of constructive program on which you can really build strength in a party or basic strength in society.” McCarthy believed that the Great Society's social welfare structure was a divisive and unnecessary departure from the New Deal and the Fair Deal (and to a lesser extent, the New Frontier), which had government services, yes, but were primarily based around self-help, public works, and providing the basis of self-sufficiency. By ripping apart the Great Society and reshaping it into New Politics and the Four New Civil Rights (a term itself very nearly plagiarized from Franklin Roosevelt), McCarthy considered himself the true successor to the legacy of the New Deal Coalition, loyally purging dangerous deviations from the system. Idiosyncratically, McCarthy was pursuing this hidden agenda through a highly elitist and technocratic administration while also genuinely believing in public accessibility to political decision-making.

    With his legislation secured, McCarthy instead tinkered with legal and constitutional matters. Despite his anti-war stance and his irrepressible support from college students, McCarthy did not believe in abolishing the draft. Instead, he believed that conscripts should have the right to 'opt out' of a war that they disagreed with, and instead be sent on Peace Corps-esque nation-building missions. McCarthy's draft reform would also remove the right to religious exemption from the draft, as he believed it to be in violation of the separation of church and state [14]. Confusingly, McCarthy also believed in the critical importance of not separating personal faith from political decisions, and frequently talked about how his devotion to Catholic Social Gospel theory influenced his political decisions and motives. McCarthy's draft reform was well-received across the political spectrum, but raised the suspicion of hawks, who believed that it would undermine manpower for a hypothetical unpopular but necessary war, and the radical New Left, who considered it coerced participation in American imperialism.

    Another major reform undertaken by McCarthy in the summer of 1970 was the beginnings of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). McCarthy was immensely more comfortable with women's groups and the feminist movement than any other social movement of the 1960s and '70s. This perhaps had to do with the fact that he had been raised almost singlehandedly by his mother, and that the majority of his supporters in the Democratic primaries had been women. Specifically, his 'average' supporter during the primaries had been an educated, middle-aged suburban woman who made twice as much as the national average, who was involved in a local religious or political group, and who was likely to be a progressive Republican or independent who had voted Democratic on the presidential level since 1960. In the Senate, McCarthy had previously sponsored legislation to implement an Equal Rights Amendment, which would entrench legal equality between men and women into the Constitution. While an ERA had been suggested in various forms since the 1920s, it had never seen significant progress. When Representative Martha Griffiths, a Democrat from Michigan, suggested to the President that an ERA be reintroduced into Congress, he enthusiastically agreed, and began proceedings to have it voted on. Notably, while it was not a major political issue at the time, McCarthy was also in favour of legalizing abortion, with the civil libertarian belief that it was a medical and privacy issue that need not require government involvement.

    Engrossed with his social reforms and less interested in campaigning than any other president in modern history, McCarthy declined to go on tour in the lead-up to the midterms. Instead, he spent the time that could have been spent campaigning on examining the marginal tax rate on telephone wiring, writing poetry with Robert Lowell, and attending fund-raising dinners in his honour at the capital. However, exceptions were made for McCarthy's protégés. The President made a personal appearance on behalf of George Brown Jr., who was in a fierce primary battle against the moderate Kennedy imitator John V. Tunney for the Senate nomination in California; a stop was also made in Connecticut for Joseph Duffey, who was running a three way race against his Republican challenger, the Goldwaterite John M. Lupton [15], and the disgraced incumbent Thomas Dodd, who had been censured by the Senate for financial corruption, but who was still running as an independent. The last big event was in New York, where Paul O'Dwyer was running against Ted Sorenson. Surprising pundits, Bobby Kennedy had declared that he would not be running for another term in the Senate, so that he could instead focus on his ghetto reconstruction initiative which he had started with the Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation (BSRC) in 1967. Privately, Kennedy had reached the decision due to his immobility after 1968's failed assassination attempt, and the constant pain he was in that required mind-clouding drugs to dull. In a touchy confrontation, Ted Sorenson, a longtime advisor to the Kennedy family, was running against O'Dwyer, McCarthy's protégé who had won the nomination but lost the Senate election in 1968. Other Democrats across the nation pleading to take advantage of McCarthy's famously long coattails were ignored. After his brief sweep across the country to California, New York, Connecticut, and a few other states, the President's interests were instead occupied by the election in Chile.

    Ever since his 1961 trip to the Christian Democrat World Conference, McCarthy had been a staunch supporter of the Christian Democratic Party of Chile (PDC). He had even reportedly delivered CIA secret funding to them during his trip to the country. In 1964, McCarthy's friend, Eduardo Frei Montalva, was elected President of Chile, receiving immense support from the CIA, who were afraid that the country's perennial Marxist candidate, Salvador Allende, might win. The leader of the right wing faction of the PDC, Frei's presidency had not been very popular. The main issue of the campaign had been the copper industry. Copper was the nation's biggest export, but was controlled for the most part by American corporations, and despite record revenues each year, the Chilean economy continued its slow decline. As an alternative to Allende's calls for nationalization, Frei had implemented “Chileanization,” a program of purchasing fifty-one percent of smaller American copper companies, and granting tax breaks and subsidies to the major American copper companies, such as the mining division of International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT), the Anaconda Mining Company, and Kennecott Utah Copper, with the understanding that they would increase production to expand employment. However, the Chileanized companies still sent most of their profits back to the United States indirectly, and the large copper corporations pocketed the tax breaks and subsidies without increasing production or employment. Frei's land reform plans had also been much more modest than they had been advertised during the election. Land ownership and agricultural production remained in the hands of old money estates, who exported most of the nation's food overseas, paid bare subsistence wages, and used the threat of unemployment – still very common in Chile due to monopolistic cartel corporate control of the major economic sectors, and limited educational opportunities to enter the skilled labour pool – to discourage unionization or demands for better pay and conditions. Frei's expansion of the education system to improve employment was considered too late too late, and labour unrest, rampant unemployment, and rapid inflation all grew worse, and he came to be seen as a stooge of American Big Business, despite his best efforts. In the run-up to the 1970 presidential election, Salvador Allende seemed poised to finally win, having run in every presidential election since 1952, and having built up a broad coalition of Marxists, socialists, social democrats, and some left Christian Democrats during that time. His two opponents were Jorge Allesandri and Radomiro Tomic. Allesandri, who had been president before Frei, was looking to make a comeback. He had been elected by a coalition of conservatives and liberals, and had dealt with unemployment through major public works projects, while addressing inflation by encouraging the growth of domestic non-export businesses and wage controls. The wage controls proved incredibly unpopular, as they kept wages from growing with inflation. They were so unpopular, in fact, that Allesandri's coalition had dissolved completely by the end of his term, which had left Frei an opportunity to fill the centrist lane and win in his own right. Running as a tough elder statesman who could defeat Marxism and make tough decisions, Allesandri postured himself as Allende's main opponent, trying to marginalize Tomic. From the left wing of the PDC, Tomic had a remarkably similar platform to Allende, calling for the nationalization of the copper industry, major agricultural reform, and a massive Keynesian stimulus package to address unemployment and end Chile's over-reliance on a handful of exports. However, unlike Allende, he stopped short of promising any major institutional change or social revolution.

    Polling in third place, Tomic received immense backroom support from his old American friend Gene McCarthy. Putting aside his suspicions of the intelligence agencies and any compunction he might have had about interfering in a foreign election, McCarthy ordered the CIA to put all of their resources into Tomic's campaign and the PDC's budget, and demanded that the American copper corporations stop supporting Alessandri, promising compensation for the nationalization of Chilean copper. Pulling ahead in the last days of August, Tomic managed to place second, surpassing Alessandri, but with Allende still having won the popular vote. However, that was not the end of the election. While Allende had won the popular vote, it had only been by a thin plurality, and as was law in Chile, if no candidate received a majority of the vote, the National Congress would decide between the top two candidates. Despite this, Allende seemed secure in victory, as it had been tradition for decades to hand the election to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of their margin. As the congressional vote approached, the CIA and the American copper companies continuied to interfere by trying to drum up a red scare and through outright bribery of politicians. Meanwhile, Alessandri's supporters refused to vote for a Marxist. In the end, the National Congress voted for Tomic, giving him the dubious distinction of becoming the first Chilean president to lose the popular vote since 1920 [16]. Once Tomic was declared the winner, the cheated Allende declared a general strike, but McCarthy guaranteed the political reliability of the Chilean military by giving CIA protection to René Schneider, the commander-in-chief of the Chilean army, and a strict constitutionalist who ensured that a majority of the army would stay loyal to the government in the event of a communist or reactionary coup [17].

    McCarthy and Chile Ambassador Radomiro Tomic.jpg

    Christian Democrats of the world, unite: A personal friend of President McCarthy, Radomiro Tomic (left) narrowly won the 1970 Chilean presidential election thanks to intense interference by the CIA and American copper corporations.

    Meanwhile, democracy had finally come to South Vietnam, or at least the closest it was ever going to get.

    The closest that South Vietnam had come to a proper election before 1970 had been the 1967 presidential and legislative elections. Despite widespread voter suppression and ballot stuffing, military dictator Nguyễn Văn Thiệu had only received around thirty-five percent of the vote, an embarrassingly low plurality. The populist runner-up, Trương Đình Dzu, was now looking to attain the presidency. As it had been illegal to run on an anti-war platform in 1967, Trương Đình Dzu had stuck to platitudes until his candidacy was confirmed, and only then revealed that he was in favour of a ceasefire with North Vietnam and peace negotiations, but continued independence. Given radio access during the campaign, Trương Đình Dzu had gained a large rural following, but after the election, a furious Nguyễn Văn Thiệu revoked his privileges and had him arrested on trumped up charges. While he had become a cause célèbre of South Vietnam's small population of urban middle class reformers, his electorate had largely forgotten him, and he had to make up for lost time. Acting President Dương Văn Minh was also running, representing a Cambodian-style neutralist form of government, and holding together what was left of Nguyễn Văn Thiệu's Nationalist Social Democratic Front (NSDF) coalition. However, after Nguyễn Văn Thiệu's removal, the coalition had not held; the ambitious general and senator Tôn Thất Đính was running as a representative of the NSDF hardliners, while Nguyễn Tôn Hoàn had broken off the Nationalist Party of Greater Vietnam (DVQDD) from the NSDF, as the most militantly anti-communist candidate, but also promising genuine democracy and more land reform. However, the most important candidate of all was Trần Văn Hữu. A former collaborator with the French colonial administrator, he had become an anti-colonialist and neutralist during the reign of President Ngô Đình Diệm. Working to undermine Ngô Đình Diệm's regime, he had becoming a fellow traveler of the communists' National Liberation Front (NLF). Rather than running a communist candidate, the NLF instead backed Trần Văn Hữu as the man most likely to comply with eventual reunification with North Vietnam. Besides these men, there were also a gaggle of minor independent candidates running, similar to in 1967. As the candidates crossed the country, the policies of North Vietnamese leader Trường Chinh offered a huge boon to Trần Văn Hữu. With American forces having completely abandoned the countryside and with the South's Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) stretched thin, the NLF had effectively taken control of most of rural South Vietnam, and therefore most of the rural population. Trying to maximize the veneer of legitimacy, the NLF did not tamper with the results, but did massive turnout drives for the presidential ballot, and had effectively given itself total control of most villages before a single ballot had been cast. As the results came in, Trần Văn Hữu was elected on a vaguely populist and social democratic platform of peace, bread, and roses, and the NLF became the largest party of the South Vietnamese legislature. However, the neutralist general and acting president Dương Văn Minh had placed second, and while the NLF was the largest party, a coalition of various nationalist and petit bourgeoisie parties had a majority. Furthermore, the referendum on immediate unification between the two Vietnams had failed, due to an overwhelming 'No' vote in the cities, and a marginal 'No' vote in ARVN-controlled areas of the Mekong Delta. South Vietnam would remain independent for the time being. This was of no matter to Trường Chinh and the North Vietnamese, who instead began plans for a gradual takeover of the levers of power in South Vietnam. Given time, the two countries would unite, whether they liked it or not.

    Tran Van Huu.jpg

    Fellow traveller: An ally of the communist National Liberal Front, Trần Văn Hữu was elected president of South Vietnam in 1970.

    While the victory of Trần Văn Hữu was a cause for alarm for foreign policy specialists, what most Americans heard shortly before the midterm elections was that South Vietnam had had its first democratic election, and a non-communist had won. Along with a strong economy, a general lack of controversy, and a final end to the Vietnam War, all the conditions were right for Democratic gains in the midterms. However, like nearly every midterm election before it, the incumbent party lost seats, with a slight decline in both the House and Senate for the Democrats. Party analysts lamented that if McCarthy had actually campaigned, it would have been an unmitigated success. Instead, they had more or less broken even.

    Despite this, the first two years of the McCarthy presidency had succeeded in nearly everything it had set out to accomplish, both domestically and in the international court. But the question remained, what was Eugene McCarthy without Vietnam?



    [1] IOTL, Nixon extended Johnson’s ten percent tax increase in 1969 to help pay for the Vietnam War.

    [2] It would have taken a much firmer stance than McCarthy would have been willing to take for Biafra to survive past the 1969-1970 period of the Nigerian Civil War, but his humanitarian interest did slightly prolong its life ITTL. Notably, IOTL, government-controlled Nigerian newspapers insulted McCarthy by name for his vocal support of Biafra. President Nixon was also a Biafra supporter, but did not do anything about it, as he felt Britain’s geopolitical loyalty was more important than a genocide.

    [3] This is quite a departure from OTL. Nixon’s Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz, ended the ever-normal granary program, encouraging farmers to “get big or get out.” This accelerated the decline of the family farm in the United States, and the subsequent rise of large industrial agriculture corporations.

    [4] McCarthy was a co-sponsor of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which abolished the National Origins Formula, a racist quota that put restrictive limitations on ‘undesirable’ immigrants, with ‘undesirable’ meaning ‘anyone who was not a white Protestant.’ Later in life, McCarthy would change his stance on immigration, becoming a supporter of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), an advocate for significantly lower immigration rates to the United States.

    [5] Bennett was apparently so devoted to honesty that he returned his disability cheques to help reduce the national debt, donated all of his leftover campaign funds to national parks, was instrumental in forming the House’s first ethics committee, and was vigorously opposed to the off-the-books accounting and slush funds that were incredibly common in Congress. However, Bennett was also a segregationist who voted against every civil rights legislation of the era, with the exception of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    [6] A third crew member named Glenn Andreotta was also with Thompson and Colburn, but he had been killed in action shortly after the Mỹ Lai Massacre while on a search and destroy mission. After their testimony IOTL, Thompson and Colburn were pilloried by the Nixon Administration and the military, and were pariahs until the late 1980s, when they were interviewed for a documentary titled Fours Hours in My Lai and broadly vindicated.

    [7] IOTL, Rivers covered up the Mỹ Lai Massacre by having all of the available witnesses testify in a private hearing, and then refused to release the transcripts or evidence to the military court that was handling the case. William Calley, the fall guy for the massacre, was originally given a life sentence with hard labour, but the Nixon Administration quietly intervened several times to have the sentence watered down. Found guilty of twenty-two counts of murder even with Rivers’ dirty tricks, Calley would ultimately only serve three months of house arrest before being released, in the midst of popular outcry in his favour.

    [8] IOTL, Mattingly was switched out and replaced by Jack Swigert as an alternate command module pilot, as Mattingly was exposed to rubella (measles) through another astronaut, who had contracted it from a friend of his son.

    [9] The following investigation both IOTL and ITTL discovered that the cause of the Apollo 13 explosion was poorly installed Teflon insulation that led to a pressure build-up of combustible gases.

    [10] It has been claimed that Ford only investigated Douglas because Nixon wanted revenge for the rejection of their Supreme Court picks, but Ford himself said that once Fortas had resigned he was going to go after Douglas, regardless of the opinion of the Nixon Administration.

    [11] IOTL, Bonnetti, who was a substitute goalkeeper, fumbled the ball, which re-invigorated the West Germans, who went on to win the game.

    [12] IOTL, the United Kingdom went back into a trade deficit shortly before the election thanks to some aircraft purchases from the United States and a dockworkers' strike. ITTL, these were mitigated by McCarthy deferring payment for the aircraft and through his greater financial assistance to stabilize the pound.

    [13] This was the agreement that Whitelaw and the party leadership agreed to IOTL, but they never had to implement it, as Heath pulled off an upset victory and defeated Wilson, serving as Prime Minister until Wilson made a comeback in 1974.

    [14] Ironically, Gene's son, Michael McCarthy, had used religious exemption to avoid the draft IOTL.

    [15] IOTL, Lupton was defeated by the moderate Lowell Weicker in the Republican primary, but ITTL, Weicker lost election to the House of Representatives in 1968, and did not have the profile to defeat his opponent, especially with the post-Nixon conservative backlash within the GOP.

    [16] IOTL, the CIA was left to its own devices to influence the Chilean presidential election. Without clear direction, they split their support among Alessandri, Tomic, and general anti-Allende advertising, resulting in Allende narrowly defeating Alessandri in the popular vote, and Tomic placing third. ITTL, with a president familiar with the minutiae of Chilean politics, the CIA and American copper interests went all in on Tomic, giving him a second place finish and enabling him to steal the election once it reached the National Congress. ITTL, due to his similar platform to Allende, Tomic threw the PDC's support behind him in the National Congress vote once he pledged to support the constitution and not try and implement a Soviet-style dictatorship.

    [17] With the encouragement of National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, the CIA backed three different attempts to kidnap Chilean commander-in-chief René Schneider to blame on Allende's Popular Unity coalition and to pave the way for a military coup to topple Allende. A first attempt by General Camilo Valenzuela failed, while a second attempt by General Roberto Viaux also failed. A third and final attempt done by both Valenzuela and Viaux was botched when Schineider was killed during the kidnapping attempt. Ultimately, the Nixon Administration and the CIA would not support either Valenzuela's or Viaux's coup plots. Valenzuela was considered too incompetent and unreliable, while the CIA report back to the White House described Viaux's political ideology as “far out,” and implied he was an actual fascist. IOTL, with major American interference and a series of constitutional disputes with the National Congress, Allende was removed in a coup by general Augusto Pinochet in 1973, and killed himself before he could be captured. Pinochet would go on to rule as one of South America's most infamous military dictators, and used the country as the guinea pig for American laissez-faire capitalist economists.
     
    Last edited:
    The 1970 Midterm Election Results
  • The 1970 Midterm Election Results

    The House
    Speaker of the House: James G. O'Hara
    House Democrats: Carl Albert - 242 - Lost 13
    House Republicans:
    Gerald Ford - 191 - Gained 13

    While there was optimism among McCarthy's supporters that he would be able to repeat his 1968 feat of making gains in an incumbent year, it was not to be. Many Republicans considered at-risk managed to narrowly hang on to their seats, while the GOP also made gains in swing and marginally Democratic districts. Despite this, House Minority Leader Gerald Ford was still a long way away from achieving his dream of becoming Speaker of the House. The following are some notable House races:

    Alaska At-Large: In a razor-thin election, Democrat Nick Begich managed to win Alaska's only House district over Republican challenger Frank Murkowski.

    Arizona 2: In his first challenge since becoming House Majority Whip, Mo Udall easily won re-election.

    California 7: In a primary challenge, incumbent Democrat Jeffery Cohelan was defeated by challenger Ron Dellums, who then went on to win the general. A member of the Johnson-Humphrey-O'Hara branch of the party, Cohelan was considered insufficiently opposed to the Vietnam War by his voting base, with McCarthyites rallying around Dellums instead.

    California 35: John G. Schmitz, after winning a special election, won a full term in his own right. Notoriously conservative and a member of the John Birch Society, Schmitz represented Orange County, a Republican stronghold (although it did vote for McCarthy in the Democratic primaries). Schmitz is a vocal critic of the president, despite ironically drawing support from similar suburban demographics.

    Delaware At-Large: Continuing Republican control of the state,
    Pete du Pont, of the famous du Pont family, was elected as Delaware's representative. Entering the House, du Pont was seemingly moderate but with an emerging unorthodoxy to his policy proposals that would grow more prominent over time.

    Massachusetts 3: With support from President McCarthy in what otherwise might have been a narrow loss,
    Robert Drinan became the first Catholic priest to be a voting member of Congress. Drinan defeated the relatively hawkish incumbent, Philip Philbin, and then went on to win a three way race between himself, Philbin (running as an independent), and Republican John McGlennon.

    Massachusetts 9: A leader of the anti-busing integration movement in Boston,
    Louise Day Hicks was elected to replace the retiring former Speaker of the House John William McCormack. While officially opposed to de jure segregation, Hicks had refused to acknowledge the de facto segregation of the Boston school system, claiming that young students were being used as political tools, and instead blaming the government for not doing enough for black people in their own communities. A controversial figure who was expected to take conservative positions, Hicks was actually generally progressive outside of her controversies with race relations.

    Michigan 17: McCarthy's lieutenant on the Equal Rights Amendment, Representative
    Martha Griffiths was easily re-elected.

    New York 5: Deprived of support by McCarthy due to their differences in 1968 and having been re-districted to a more conservative area, Allard Lowenstein, once the leader of the Dump Johnson movement, was defeated by
    Norman F. Lent.

    New York 19: In yet another McCarthyite challenge, leading feminist
    Bella Abzug defeated the incumbent Democrat Leonard Farbstein. A leading supporter of McCarthy in 1968 among women's activist groups, Abzug has a personal rapport with the president, and was trusted and accepted by his otherwise exclusionary inner circle as truly loyal.

    New York 39: In a narrow win, football star Jack Kemp was elected in the traditionally Democratic suburban areas of Buffalo. A maverick within his own party and self-described "bleeding heart conservative," Kemp was not only a civil libertarian but a civil progressive, which he mixed with laissez-faire capitalist attitudes that would usually be considered the kiss of death in American politics in the early 1970s. Kemp was representative of the rightward lurch that the Republicans had undergone since Nixon's second defeat.

    The Senate
    1970 Senate Elections.png

    President Pro Tempore:
    Richard Russell Jr.
    Senate Democrats: Mike Mansfield - 57 Seats - Lost 4

    Senate Republicans: Roman Hruska - 43 Seats - Gained 4

    With the vast majority of the Senators running for re-election being Democrats, there was a real possibility for the Republicans to attain an outright majority in the Senate, but, anti-climactically, few seats changed hands. While a handful of McCarthy's protégés and supporters were elected, nearly all of them were in states where they already held party incumbency. The sole exception was California, where McCarthy loyalist George Brown Jr. took the state from the Republicans. Of the gains made, the strongest swing was in favour of the GOP in the Midwest.

    Alaska: In December of 1968, Democratic senator Bob Bartlett died in office. His replacement, appointed by Governor Wally Hickel, was moderate Republican Ted Stevens. Stevens then went on to defeat Mike Gravel, who was making his second attempt at the Senate after having split the Democratic vote with Democratic write-in (and McCarthy's Secretary of the Interior) Ernest Gruening. Stevens was expected to be a moderate counterweight to his fellow Alaskan in the Senate, conservative Republican Elmer Rasmuson.

    Arizona: Incumbent conservative Republican Paul Fannin defeated his challenger, director, documentarian, and Democrat Sam Grossman.

    California: After an incredibly fierce primary battle that involved one of the President's very rare extended campaigning sessions, McCarthy protégé George Brown Jr. defeated the Kennedy-esque moderate, John V. Tunney. Brown then went on to defeat the incumbent George Murphy, a conservative Republican and former actor.

    Connecticut: In a complex three-way race, McCarthyite Democrat Joseph D. Duffey defeated Goldwater Republican John M. Lupton and incumbent Democrat-turned-independent Thomas J. Dodd. Dodd had been censured for corruption and lost the primary to Duffey. Receiving robust support from McCarthy and the Democratic National Committee, Duffey had received enough support from liberal and moderate Republicans for a narrow plurality.

    Delaware: Retiring Republican John J. Williams was succeeded by William Roth, another well-established member of the Delaware Republican Party.

    Florida: After a bitter factional battle in the Republican primary between William Cramer (one of the Florida GOP's two bosses) and Ray Osborne (the choice of its other boss, Governor Claude R. Kirk Jr.), self-described "progressive conservative" Lawton Chiles held the seat for the Democrats.

    Hawaii: In the closest election of the midterms, Hiram Fong, a moderate Republican and self-made millionaire, won re-election over his Democratic challenger, the maverick moderate Cec Heftel. While conceding defeat, Heftel would bitterly complain that even a single appearance from McCarthy would have won him the election.

    Indiana: The Hoosier State's anti-war Democrat, Vance Hartke, was defeated by his Republican challenger, Richard Roudebush. Despite being from the same anti-war liberal branch of the party as McCarthy, the President declined to visit the state, citing his "busy schedule." However, privately, McCarthy mocked Hartke for having supported Bobby Kennedy during the 1968's Indiana Democratic primary.

    Maine: While Hartke floundered, Edmund Muskie enjoyed several visits from his personal friend Gene McCarthy despite polling already showing a guaranteed victory.

    Maryland: Out of favour with the party after their defeat in 1968, the moderate, Nixon-appointed Chair of the Republican National Committee, Rogers Morton, voluntarily resigned to run for Senate. There, he defeated yet another anti-war liberal who had the misfortune of not being part of the McCarthy faction, incumbent Joseph Tydings.

    Massachusetts: The last of the Kennedy brothers to remain in elected office, Ted Kennedy has breezed to re-election. Declining to seek the position of Senate Majority Whip and busy juggling his career, the family, and his brother Bobby's poor health, the last few years have been busy, but largely uneventful and free of controversy for Ted. While reluctant to pursue the presidency despite encouragement from Bobby and the family, Ted is considered Camelot's last champion.

    Michigan: Despite a spirited effort by outgoing governor George Romney, Senator Philip Hart won re-election. Hart was relatively slow to oppose the Vietnam War, and was somewhere between the Johnson-Humphrey-O'Hara wing and the McCarthyites in terms of policy. However, Hart had the advantage of being one of McCarthy's personal friends, and the President made frequent appearances on his behalf.

    Minnesota: Leaving the cabinet, former vice president and secretary of labor Hubert Humphrey returned to the Senate after defeating progressive Republican Clark MacGregor, who was appointed to fill McCarthy's vacated seat. Ironically, Humphrey remains the first choice of Minnesota Democrats by far and away over McCarthy, and some speculate that had McCarthy lost the presidential nomination he also would have lost to MacGregor.

    Mississippi: One of the longest serving men in the Senate, John C. Stennis, one of McCarthy's more loyal Southerners, was easily re-elected.

    Missouri: In an upset victory, moderate Republican John Danforth narrowly defeated former presidential contender Stuart Symington.

    Montana: Swatting aside primary challengers and his Republican opponent, Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield easily won re-election to his fourth term.

    Nebraska: In a surprisingly close election, Senate Minority Leader Roman Hruska triumphed over his Democratic opponent, thereby preventing a second leadership crisis in as many years for the GOP.

    Nevada: After barely winning his first time around, moderate Democrat Howard Cannon was the clear victor in his bid for re-election.

    New Jersey: In an uneventful campaign, Harrison A. William was re-elected to another term.

    New Mexico: In another close election, Democrat Joseph Montoya, a long-established figure in New Mexican politics, was defeated by his Republican challenger Anderson Carter.

    New York: In another three-way race, McCarthy protégé Paul O'Dwyer won against progressive Republican Charles Goodell and third party Conservative James Buckley. Filling the seat being vacated by Bobby Kennedy, O'Dwyer defeated the Kennedy faction candidate Ted Sorenson in an awkward primary, also managing to win the nomination of the New York-based Liberal Party, forming a fusion ticket. Despite the left-leaning vote being split between himself and Goodell, O'Dwyer's combined total of Democrats and Liberals was enough to narrowly defeat Buckley, with Goodell trailing in third.

    North Dakota: Like Minnesota, North Dakota had a fusion of the Democratic Party and a local progressive third party, in this case the Nonpartisan League. Quentin Burdick of the D-NPL defeated his Republican challenger, Thomas Kleppe.

    Ohio: In a spirited primary campaign, Ohio's undefeated Republican governor, James A. Rhodes, beat his intraparty challenger, Robert Taft Jr. With Ohio's campuses quiet, Rhodes was able to run on a law and order platform and the force of his personality to defeat his quieter counterpart and his Democratic opponent, Howard Metzenbaum. While critics point out Rhodes' populist, simplistic, and almost apolitical style of politics, his unrivalled success in Ohio politics was impossible to ignore.

    Pennsylvania: In another surprisingly close election for a Republican leader, Senate Minority Whip Hugh Scott defeated his Democratic opponent.

    Rhode Island: Beloved in his state, incumbent Democrat John Pastore breezed to re-election despite McCarthy's antipathy toward him.

    Tennessee: In another neck-and-neck race, Senator Albert Gore was re-elected thanks to intense support from President McCarthy and the collaboration of other Southern Democrats, defeating his conservative Republican challenger, Bill Brock. Gore had long served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with McCarthy, and while they were not particularly close, they were closely associated.

    Texas: With McCarthy enforcing a ceasefire between the conservative and liberal wings of the Texas Democratic Party, Vice President John Connally was forced to campaign for his rival, Senator Ralph Yarbourough, and crush any attempts from the conservative wing to challenge him in the primaries. With the opposition uniquely unified, Yarbourough's expected opponent, Representative George H.W. Bush, decided not to run. With a sparse field of candidates, fringe right conservative Republican Robert J. Morris attained the nomination, but was handily defeated by Yarbourough. Out of all the politicians in America, Yarbourough is perhaps the only one McCarthy felt any regret for turning against, having struck a backroom deal with his most hated nemesis despite Yarbourough supporting him at the convention.

    Utah: A specialist in medical and health policy, Democratic Senator Frank Moss clinched re-election to yet another term.

    Vermont: A classic New England Republican, Winston Prouty defeated Democratic National Committee Chair (and former Governor of Vermont) Philip Hoff.

    Virginia: Despite his misgivings for some of the President's more liberal policies, Harry Byrd Jr. admitted that McCarthy had respect for the South. McCarthy was also friends with the Senator's late father. Continuing his family's trend of dominating Virginian politics, Byrd Jr. obliterated his Republican opponent.

    Washington: McCarthy's fiercest foreign policy critics did not come from the Republicans, but from within his own party, in the form of Senator Henry 'Scoop' Jackson, who easily won an overwhelming victory despite getting a cold shoulder from the DNC. Jackson was a committed hawk and anti-communist who believed that McCarthy was leading the nation into geopolitical irrelevance.

    West Virginia: The heir apparent of the leadership of the Southern Democrats, Robert Byrd won an easy victory in 1970.

    Wisconsin: Both a liberal Democrat and a fiscal hawk, William Proxmire trounced his opponent. While technically part of the McCarthyite faction, Proxmire and the President have a cold relationship with its origins in them previously competing for a seat on the Senate Finance Committee.

    Wyoming: A hawkish Democrat who filled McCarthy's vacancy on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Gale W. McGee won re-election.

    The Governorships
    1601950683193.png

    National Governors' Association Chair: John Love
    Democratic Governors' Association Chair: John Dempsey - 27 Governorships - Gained 5
    Republican Governors' Association Chair: Ronald Reagan - 23 Governorships - Lost 5


    In 1970's gubernatorial elections, the Republican Party continued to dominate the western states, while the Democrats made their strongest gains in the Midwest, while capturing two more errant Southern states. With the gains made by the Democrats, they officially held a majority in all of the segments of American political life (the presidency, both branches of the legislature, and the governorships), not counting the state legislatures.

    Alabama: After a term-limited stint out of office, the notorious George Wallace returned to Alabama's Governor's Mansion, with plans for yet another run for president. He defeated his former lieutenant governor, Albert Brewer, despite insisting he would not make any efforts to retake his old job.

    Alaska: In a battle of the state's political giants, Alaska's first Republican governor, the moderate Wally Hickel, defeated its first Democratic governor, William Egan, in a rematch election.

    Arizona: In a very narrow race, Arizona's low profile governor, Jack Williams, won re-election. While relatively moderate, Williams tended to go along with the more conservative Republicans who controlled the state legislature.

    Arkansas: Defeating Winthrop Rockefeller, Arkansas' first Republican governor since Reconstruction, liberal Democrat Dale Bumpers enjoyed a landslide victory after dispatching his segregationist primary opponents while running on a moderate 'New South' political brand.

    California: In a close election, the champion of conservative Republicans Ronald Reagan narrowly defeated the boss of the California Democratic Party, Jesse Unruh. An imminently winnable race for Unruh, he suffered from it being a Democratic incumbent year on the national level, and only meagre support from the President, who never forgot that Unruh fiercely fought for Bobby Kennedy in the state's primary before later switching allegiances.

    Colorado: In a simple, by-the-books race, the Chair of the National Governors' Association, Republican John Love, won re-election.

    Connecticut: With Governor John Dempsey, the Chair of the Democratic Governor's Association, retiring, Republican Thomas Meskill defeated Dempsey's hopeful successor in something of an upset.

    Florida: Suffering from intense splits in his party and a bitter rivalry with Florida GOP's other boss, controversial governor Claude R. Kirk Jr. suffered defeat at the hands of moderate Democrat Reubin Askew.

    Georgia: With the state's infamous segregationist governor Lester Maddox ineligible for another term, a tough primary battle led to the victory of state politician and peanut farmer Jimmy Carter, who moved to the centre after initially running a fairly conservative campaign.

    Hawaii: Governor Jack Burns, who helped establish Democratic dominance in the state of Hawaii, managed to win another term.

    Idaho: Confirming Republican gubernatorial dominance in the western states, Governor Don Samuelson narrowly won re-election.

    Iowa: In a close battle, incumbent Republican Robert Day was re-elected to another term.

    Kansas: Despite being from an overwhelmingly Republican state, Democrat Robert Docking managed to win re-election.

    Maine: While Edmund Muskie remained exceedingly popular in the state, Maine's New England Republican leanings came through with the election of Republican James S. Erwin.

    Maryland: Having failed to win his state for the ticket in the presidential election and having been hounded by gaffes and scandal, it was perhaps no surprise that Governor Spiro Agnew lost re-election to Maryland's state Speaker of the House, Marvin Mandel.

    Massachusetts: In a battle of who was less unpopular rather than more popular, Mayor of Boston Kevin White defeated incumbent John Volpe, who barely survived a conservative primary challenge after become disliked for his naked ambition to leave Massachusetts behind for higher office. A proponent of busing integration, White's term was expected to be a controversial one, and he was more aligned with the McCarthyites than his home state's Kennedy faction.

    Michigan: With Governor Romney running for Senate, his lieutenant governor, William Millikin, managed to win his own term.

    Minnesota: In a tag-team performance with Hubert Humphrey's return to the Senate, Wendell Anderson won the governorship. In a notable rebuke of the President from his home state, neither Anderson nor his lieutenant governor could be described as McCarthyites.

    Nebraska: In a confusing election, both the Democrats and Republicans suffered from bitter primary fights, but ultimately the leader of the state's Democrats, J. James Exon won the day.

    Nevada: Following on the heels of conservative Republican Governor Paul Laxalt, his second, Edward Fike, narrowly won at the top of the ticket.

    New Hampshire: In a race that was closer than expected, Governor Walter R. Peterson Jr. still managed re-election.

    New Mexico: In another close election, conservative Republican Pete Domenici won the governorship.

    New York: The icon of progressive Republicans, Nelson Rockefeller easily won yet another term despite a spirited challenge from McCarthyite Howard J. Samuels, who defeated former Ambassador Arthur Goldberg in the Democratic primary.

    Ohio: With Ohio's incumbent governor moving to the Senate, Democratic Representative Robert Sweeney managed to take the state from the Republicans.

    Oklahoma: In a very close race, incumbent Dewey Bartlett won re-election.

    Oregon: A liberal-to-moderate Republican, Tom McCall won re-election by a respectable margin.

    Pennsylvania: Succeeding the retiring Raymond P. Shafer, one of the Republicans' leading moderate and governors, ambitious Democratic reformer Milton Shapp defeated his Republican challenger.

    Rhode Island: In a very close race, Republican Hertbert DiSimone defeated Governor Frank Licht.

    South Carolina: Moderate Democrat John C. West defeated ultraconservative Republican Albert Watson, who ran an openly segregationist campaign.

    South Dakota: In that year's Democratic wave in the state, Richard F. Kneip, an ally of Senator George McGovern, toppled incumbent governor Frank Farrar.

    Tennessee: With the previous National Governors' Association Chair (and old fashioned Johnson loyalist) Buford Ellington retiring, Republicans took the oppurtunity to elect Winfield Dunn, taking solace in their failure to defeat Senator Gore.

    Texas: John Connally's old second-in-command and a member of the conservative wing of the Texas Democratic Party, Governor
    Preston Smith was re-elected over his unknown Republican opponent, Paul Eggers.

    Vermont: Having previously swept into office on dissatisfaction with the state's liberal Democrats, Republican
    Deane C. Davis was clearly re-elected.

    Wisconsin: For the second time in a row a McCarthyite gained the Democratic nomination for Wisconsin's governorship, but this time he won.
    Patrick Lucey, McCarthy's acting campaign director and floor manager at the Democratic National Convention, replaced retiring Republican incumbent Harold LeVander.

    Wyoming: A prominent environmentalist and moderate Republican, Stanley Hathaway won a breakaway victory in Wyoming.
     
    Last edited:
    Chapter Nine – Bangla Dhun
  • Chapter Nine – Bangla Dhun

    A semblance of peace had finally come to Vietnam with the election of the communist fellow traveller Trần Văn Hữu as President of South Vietnam and the deposition of Lê Duẩn by Trường Chinh for the title of General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam. Likewise, peace had come to Laos after royalist forces were compelled into forming a coalition government with the communist Panthet Lao and their leader, Prince Souphanouvong, in the midst of American military withdrawal. However, the events of the early 1970s proved that Asia would remain wracked by conflict even without American help.

    Like South Vietnam and Laos, the neutralist regime of Chief of State (and former King) Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia had entered into a coalition with communists. However, unlike the former two, Sihanouk had done so years earlier, and had them purged from the government completely in 1968. Since then, Sihanouk's political organization Sangkum had been dominated by right wing elements, led by Prime Minister Lon Nol. However, for his tolerance of North Vietnamese troops crossing his territory, Sihanouk was still considered an ally of communism by the international socialist fraternity. Because of this, Cambodia's communists either fled to North Vietnam, or aligned with the rural guerillas of Saloth Sâr, one of the country's most radical communists who had refused to work with Sihanouk from the start.

    After years of supporting the rightist elements within Sihanouk's regime, the United States' last act before withdrawing completely from his country was to warn him of a coup by those very same rightist elements. Besides being prime minister, Lon Nol was also the leader of the armed forces. Frustrated with Sihanouk's tolerance of the Vietnamese communists, Lon Nol intended to use anti-Vietnamese sentiments to whip up a riot, then launch a soft coup to compel Sihanouk to cut all ties with North Vietnam. However, Lon Nol's co-conspirator, Deputy Prime Minister Sisowath Sirik Matak, wanted to remove Sihanouk completely, abolish the monarchy, and install a republican military dictatorship. Needing the tacit approval of the CIA mission in the country either way, the plotters informed them of the plan. But, rather than supporting the coup, the CIA informed Sihanouk of the plan, on the orders of President McCarthy and Director of the CIA Thomas McCoy. Using loyalists in the police under the control of his brother-in-law, Secretary of State for Defence Oum Mannorine, Sihanouk had the plotters arrested in early 1970. In the ensuing purge, Sihanouk put much of the military's duties in the hands of the police. Both military loyalists to Lon Nol and Sirik Matak's clique in the National Assembly were rounded up and put under arrest. With the military leadership and Sirik Matak clique removed from office and the leftists having been exiled years ago, Sihanouk's government became entirely reliant on the liberal democratic centre led by the parliamentarian In Tam [1].

    The aftermath of the failed coup left Cambodia divided between two powers that were both divided amongst themselves. The Sangkum government was split between Sihanouk's autocratic loyalists and In Tam's parliamentary liberals in an incredibly fragile government but one with no real opposition. The communists were split between Saloth Sâr's Communist Party of Kampuchea (Nationalist), which refused to cooperate with any other group and continued guerrilla action against Sihanouk, and Son Ngoc Minh's Communist Party of Kampuchea (Internationalist). A longtime ally of the Vietnamese communist movement, the elderly Son Ngoc Minh was selected by the North Vietnamese as a cooperative, relatively moderate alternative compared to Saloth Sâr. Rather than direct confrontation, the Internationalists instead followed Trường Chinh's policy of building grassroots support and taking power through political means, or at least until a united Vietnam could install them into power. Tensions would become so fierce between the two communist camps that the North Vietnamese attempted to assassinate Saloth Sâr at what was supposed to be a joint operational security negotiation, permanently dividing the two communist factions [2].

    Lon Nol.jpg

    Cambodia's prime minister and leading general, Lon Nol (centre), was arrested and later executed after he was uncovered plotting a right wing coup against Chief of State Norodom Sihanouk. The subsequent purge of conservative elements in the Cambodian government left Sihanouk entirely reliant on the liberal democratic centrists in the National Assembly.

    While conflict was winding down to the east, the next great crisis in Asia would emerge in Pakistan, where election interference and ethnic conflict threatened to rip the country in half.

    Pakistan, as a nation, had its roots in Muslim intellectual circles of the late 19th Century and early-to-mid 20th Century. Living under the rule of the British Raj, members of the Muslim upper middle class believed that Westernization through accepting British-style education and bureaucratic methods would be the only way to stay politically relevant. To that end, they formed the All-India Muslim League (AIML) in 1906, in part as a counter to the older and larger Indian National Congress (INC). The AIML’s long-time leader, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, believed that the INC was dominated by Hindus, and that if India were to become one country a Hindu governing elite would marginalize the Muslim population. As a solution, Jinnah became a leading advocate of two-nations theory: the idea that Hindus and Muslims were too culturally different to ever peacefully coexist, and that the best solution would be a partition into two nations, one Muslim, and one Hindu. The AIML also advocated for cooperation with British colonial authorities and ‘working inside the system’ to meet their goals. This was all in contrast to the INC. Advocating an inclusive nationalism of all Indian ethnicities and creeds, the INC believed in a single indivisible Indian nation, and followed a line of civil unrest, peaceful protests, and non-co-operation made famous by Mohandas Gandhi, who, while only formally serving a short term as the INC’s president, was acknowledged as the organization’s premier leader for decades. Following highly divided election results in 1945 and 1946 (with the AIML winning overwhelmingly in Muslim areas and the INC winning overwhelmingly everywhere else), the British agreed to arbitrate a partition along the lines of two-nations theory, overseen by the last Viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten. In most cases, provinces with a clear majority were awarded to either India or Pakistan, but in two cases, provinces with a sizeable Muslim minority were also partitioned, with the Muslim portions being allocated to Pakistan. Such was the case in West Punjab and East Bengal. The princely states – parts of the British Raj ruled by various kings which had been technically independent under colonial rule – were also pressured into joining either India or Pakistan. However, problems emerged in princely states who had a ruler of one religion but a majority population of the other. This issue was most pronounced in the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, to the far north of the former colony, and on the border between India and Pakistan. Although it had a Muslim majority, Jammu and Kashmir’s ruler, the Maharajah Hari Singh, was Hindu. Initially attempting to maintain his independence, Singh eventually agreed to join his state to India, after his army was defeated by Muslim tribal militias from Pakistan looking to forcibly annex his realm [3]. This triggered an inconclusive war between the two newly independent countries in 1947, which left Jammu and Kashmir divided between the two of them, and with the battle line acting as the de facto border. While the centre of conflict, the partition of India also led to widespread sectarian violence, massive riots, paramilitary skirmishes, and the largest mass migration in human history. Both Gandhi and Jinnah would die before the war’s end in 1949. The former was killed by a Hindu supremacist who believed he was coddling the religious minorities (especially the Muslims), while the latter died of tuberculosis after becoming the first Governor General of Pakistan.

    Once it achieved its independence, Pakistan was notably the world’s only exclave country, meaning its territory did not geographically connect. While ‘mainland’ Pakistan was on the northwestern border of India, East Bengal, which contained most of Pakistan’s population, was far to the east, on the other side of the subcontinent. West Pakistan’s political dominance would remain a sticking point in the country that would eventually lead to war in 1971.

    Following the First Indo-Pakistani War and an attempted coup by communists in the military, Pakistan’s first prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, was assassinated, and Jinnah’s successor as governor general, Khawaja Nazimuddin, took his place. Despite being Bengali himself, Nazimuddin was unable to cope with widespread protests in East Bengal that demanded that the Bengali language be recognized as an official language of Pakistan along with Urdu, the most common language of the western provinces. On top of that, riots in the freshly partitioned province of Punjab continued despite Nazimuddin invoking martial law, and he was dismissed by the governor general for failing to restore order. Next was Mohammad Ali Bogra. Bogra looked to stabilize the relationship with East Bengal by reforming Pakistan’s provincial borders. East Bengal was renamed East Pakistan, while the four western provinces – Khyber Pakhtunkwah, Punjab, Balochistan, and Sindh – were merged into one province called West Pakistan. Bogra also made preparations to change Pakistan’s constitution from a British dominion to a fully independence republic that enshrined Islam into the legal system, and pursued closer relations with the United States and the People’s Republic of China. However, Bogra was dismissed by Governor General Iskander Ali Mizra after his party, the Muslim League (the official successor to the AIML), placed fourth in the 1954 East Bengal legislative election. After the passage of the new constitution, the country officially became the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, a semi-presidential parliamentary democracy, with Mizra appointed its first president by an electoral college. With no prime minister able to hold together a workable governing coalition and with a nationwide election yet to be held, Mizra continuously sacked his own heads of government. With it looking unlikely that he would win re-election, Mizra declared martial law, and dissolved his own party’s government, resulting in General Muhammad Ayun Khan launching a coup, appointing himself president and military dictator, and leaving the office of prime minister intentionally vacant. Under his rule, Ayub Khan actively encouraged foreign investment, and touched off rapid industrialization through widespread privatization of the economy and massive infrastructure projects.

    Meanwhile, India had followed a different course. Jawaharlal Nehru, a democratic socialist and close ally of Gandhi, became the country’s first prime minister. In large part due to the grassroots nature of the INC, its established dominance, and massive popularity, India remained relatively stable. Like, Pakistan, India dissolved its dominion status in favour of a semi-presidential republic, but unlike Pakistan, authority clearly remained with the prime minister. In its first general election since becoming a republic, Nehru and the INC were returned to power with a gargantuan supermajority [4]. Free to pursue his political agenda, Nehru adopted a mixed economic model, with private industry but a powerful public sector with a large amount of government oversight. Nehru moved closer to the Soviet Union than with any other of the major powers, but kept them at arm’s length, becoming a founding member of the international Non-Aligned Movement, a socialist-leaning and anti-imperialist organization, co-founded by Yugoslavia, Egypt, Indonesia, and Ghana. However, thanks to non-alignment, both the United States and Soviet Union tried to curry favour with India with foreign aid, which, along with Nehru’s policies, fostered rapid industrialization and land reform. Unlike the frequent leadership changes in Pakistan, Nehru remained prime minister for the entirety of the 1950s, being re-elected with an increased supermajority in 1957.

    Throughout the 1950s, Pakistan and India remained in a stand-off over Kashmir; while India was militarily superior, it also had to worry about possible intervention from Pakistan’s ally China. The balance of power made it undesirable for either side to start a war. However, tensions increased between India and China following the Chinese annexation of Tibet, which expanded the border between the two countries. Disagreements over where the border was prompted China to launch a border war in 1962 to secure what it called the “Line of Actual Control,” resulting in a quick victory for China and an embarrassing defeat for India. Sensing weakness after the Sino-Indian War and the death of Nehru in 1964, Ayub Khan provoked a second war over Kashmir in 1965 by encouraging border skirmishes and sending infiltrators to provoke an uprising among the Muslim population. In reaction, India launched a conventional invasion of West Pakistan. Engrossed by the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson put an arms embargo on both countries, and left it to the Soviet Union to arbitrate a ceasefire. With negotiations overseen by Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin, Ayub Khan and India’s second prime minister, Lal Bahadur Shastri, signed the Tashkent Agreement, restoring the status quo. Shastri died a day after signing the agreement, and he was succeeded as prime minister by Indira Gandhi, the daughter of Nehru [5].

    1603683877637.png

    Pakistan was the only major country in the world to be an exclave nation; the Muslim majority territories granted to Pakistan during the partition of India were not geographically connected.

    By the time of the McCarthy Administration, the geopolitics of the India-Pakistan rivalry had grown even more convoluted. East Pakistan had become increasingly disgruntled with the political dominance and economic favouritism toward West Pakistan under the Ayub Khan dictatorship. Taking advantage of the unrest, the Awami League (AL) and its leader, Sheikh Muhibur Rahman (more commonly known as Mujib), rose to prominence. The AL was a Bengali nationalist party, with members ranging from liberals to democratic socialists, and based its policies around six non-negotiable demands known as the six points. They included a demand for democratic elections and an incredibly weak federal government, with West and East Pakistan each having their own currency, military, and tax agencies. Pro-AL Bengali unrest came to a head in 1968 at the same time as widespread student protests in West Pakistan, egged on by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the founder of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). A former cabinet minister for Ayub Khan from West Pakistan, Bhutto was notoriously hawkish against India, and had resigned in protest of the Tashkent Agreement. Leaving the government, Bhutto reinvented himself as a populist opponent of the presidential dictator. Both Mujib and Bhutto were arrested by Ayub Khan early into the 1968 protests, which ultimately lasted over a year. Ayub Khan’s efforts to negotiate a political compromise with all the parties but the AL and PPP fell apart, and Ayub Khan’s protégé, General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan [6], removed him in a coup. Yahya Khan enforced martial law, but also dissolved West Pakistan, reverting it to its original provinces, and declared that he would hold the first general election in Pakistan’s history in order to form a new government and draft a new constitution. Privately, Yahya Khan had less idealistic motives. He believed that permanent martial law was untenable, and wanted to introduce a mixed government following “the Turkish model,” where a civilian prime minister and legislature would govern day-to-day, but the president (in this case, Yahya Khan) and the military would reserve the right to control the political process as they saw fit. Bhutto and the PPP eventually became his chosen civilian collaborators, as the two agreed on the role of the military in government, and both opposed autonomy for East Pakistan. Running a populist campaign, Bhutto called for greater democracy, a policy of Islamic Socialism, and guaranteed “Food, Clothing, and Shelter.” He also began associating himself with Mao Zedong and the Communist Party of China (CPC), and called for an end to Pakistan’s alliance with the United States [7]. Besides the PPP, Yahya Khan also supported various smaller parties that had splintered from the old Muslim League in the hopes that no party could form a workable government, forcing another election and extending military rule. In the east, while Mujib was personally inclined toward socialism, he stuck to the social democratic party line, and capitalized on the fact that the AL was the only major party in East Pakistan advocating for the overwhelmingly popular position of provincial autonomy. To his surprise, when the election was held in December of 1970, the AL won an outright majority with one hundred and sixty seats, all of which were in East Pakistan. While Bhutto and the PPP were the clear winner in the western provinces, they still trailed far behind Mujib and the AL, at around half their level of support. The next six parties were various conservative splinters of the Muslim League.

    Publicly, Yahya Khan declared that the National Assembly would convene in March of 1971 to draft the constitution, and referred to Mujib as the next prime minister. However, in private, he sabotaged the negotiations between the AL, the PPP, and the military; Yahya Khan and Bhutto refused to allow any of Mujib’s six points into the constitution, and Bhutto threatened to boycott the National Assembly if Mujib used his majority to do it without any other party. Yahya Khan also encouraged the various Muslim League parties to do the same. Using the absence of any party from the western provinces, Yahya Khan would then prolong military rule until an agreement could be reached, a process he would stretch out indefinitely. Once March arrived, Yahya Khan declared the postponement of the convening of the National Assembly due to the lack of an agreement, and used the ensuing protests in riots in East Pakistan to launch a military crackdown. He had been discretely funneling the Pakistani army to the east just for this. Titled Operation Searchlight, Yahya Khan’s simple plan was to brutalize the Bengali population until they capitulated to the political dominance of the western provinces, remarking, “Kill three million of them and the rest will eat out of our hands.” Mujib was quickly arrested and put in solitary confinement in the western provinces, and in his absence, the newly declared Provisional Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh was led by Tajuddin Ahmad, the General Secretary of the AL.

    Operation Searchlight precipitated a geopolitical crisis where, ironically, every single global and regional power was equally opposed to the crackdown and Bangladeshi independence.

    In India, Indira Gandhi had a won a majority government shortly before Operation Searchlight was launched. Gandhi had seen declining support in the 1967 election, facing economic difficulties and a Maoist uprising led by the Community Party of India (Marxist) known as the Naxalite insurgency. The Naxalites were mostly located in the country’s east, and were in contact with the various Maoist groups of East Pakistan. Gandhi had also caused a split in her party after she had backed a different candidate for president than the old guard of the INC, but managed to defeat them with her 1971 majority. Despite wanting to address domestic issues, Operation Searchlight caused a massive refugee crisis, as East Pakistan’s Bengali population fled into India to avoid the widespread massacres being perpetrated by the Pakistani army. Providing refugee camps for the fleeing Bengalis, the humanitarian effort quickly began to cost over a billion rupees, and destroyed the national budget. Gandhi believed that an independent Bangladesh would stake a claim on the Indian province of West Bengal, as well as that a prolonged war could potentially cause the Bengali Maoists to take over the liberation war and empower the Nexalites. Because of this, Gandhi desired a quick negotiated settlement, with Bangladesh returning to Pakistan with greater autonomy.

    In the United States, Eugene McCarthy saw the crisis in terms of his moral responsibility to reign in America’s ally Pakistan, while also looking to improve relations with India. Traditionally, the Republican Party and the Defense Department supported Pakistan, while the Democratic Party and the State Department preferred India, and this rule did not find an exception under the McCarthy Administration. President McCarthy, Secretary of State J. William Fulbright, Secretary of Treasury John Kenneth Galbraith, and US Ambassador to the UN Chester Bowles (the latter two had both served as Ambassador to India) all believed they should pressure Pakistan into negotiating with the Provisional Government, but there was disagreement over if should be done by withdrawing all economic and military aid or only threatening to do so. Also complicating the matter was McCarthy’s attempts to open up relations with China, as Pakistan served as the diplomatic conduit for the secret talks. McCarthy did not clearly state a preference for total withdrawal of aid, private pressure, or a mixed approach, leaving it to the cabinet to decide. With confusion over what their policy actually was, the United States did not formulate an effective strategy until mid-May of 1971, but regardless, they desired a quick negotiated settlement, with Bangladesh returning to Pakistan with greater autonomy [8].

    In the Soviet Union, there was a sense that they had a responsibility to maintain peace on the India subcontinent due to their role in the Tashkent Agreement. The General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (and the Soviet Union’s de facto leader), Leonid Brezhnev, was fairly uninvolved with events in India. The Soviet effort was mostly overseen by Premier Alexei Kosygin, with assistance from Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrei Gromyko, and Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet Nikolai Podgorny. While typically aligned with India due to their mutual enemy, China, the Soviets had also begun selling weapons to Pakistan on the side, in order to have diplomatic clout with both countries. The Soviets feared that if Bangladesh became independent, it would be vulnerable to a Maoist takeover and would become subservient to China. They also questioned the socialist credentials of the AL, which they believed was beholden to the capitalist petit bourgeois middle class. In order to maintain the balance of power, the Soviets pressured the Communist Party of India [9] to also support their position: they desired a quick negotiated settlement, with Bangladesh returning to Pakistan with greater autonomy.

    Lastly there were the Chinese. Given the impression by their ally Yahya Khan that a negotiated settlement between the AL and the PPP had been imminent in February of 1971, the Chinese were perturbed by Operation Searchlight, and Premier Zhou Enlai took over their diplomatic efforts. Zhou thought that the attack against East Pakistan was dangerously reckless, as it left the western provinces open to a military intervention by India or the Soviet Union. Facing a possible war on two fronts if the Soviets attacked with Indian support, the Chinese had decided to improve relations with India. Likewise, China was in dire straights due to the ongoing violent reforms and purges orchestrated by the Chairman of the Communist Party of China and the nation’s paramount leader, Mao Zedong. Militarily speaking, China was in no position to support Pakistan in a war with India, even if they wanted to. Zhou was also concerned that, since the Maoist parties of East Pakistan support independence, they would be annihilated by Yahya Khan in the ongoing crackdown. Ironically, the Chinese had the opposite concern of the Indians and Soviets; they knew that the Bengali Maoists were not nearly strong enough to take control of the Provisional Government from the AL, and believed that the faux-socialist Mujib would align with the Soviets in the event of independence. In order to prevent a Soviet takeover while also keeping the Bengali Maoists from getting killed while still maintain close ties with Pakistan there was only one solution: they desired a quick negotiated settlement, with Bangladesh returning to Pakistan with greater autonomy.

    Bhutto and Yahya Khan.jpg

    Yahya Khan (left) and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (right). Trying to prolong military rule in Pakistan, President Yahya Khan precipitated the Bangladesh Liberation War. A prominent political leader in West Pakistan, Bhutto collaborated with the military regime at first.
    But even beyond Pakistan, the People’s Republic of China had its own problems.

    Formally established in 1949, the People’s Republic of China was born civil war and foreign invasion. Originally, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was allied with the National Party of China, or Kuomintang (KMT), led by Sun Yat-sen. The KMT became a leading force in the aftermath of the 1911 Xinhai Revolution that toppled the Qing Empire and created the Republic of China, but the country remained fractured by warlord states and competing governments. Sun’s ideology reflected nationalist, democratic republican, and some socialist values, and besides working with the CCP, also maintained good relations with the newly formed Soviet Union. However, following Sun’s death in 1924, tensions grew between the KMT’s authoritarian anti-communist right wing faction, led by General Chiang Kai-shek, and the communist-sympathetic left wing faction, led by Wang Jingwei [10]. After defeating several northern warlord states, Chiang gained the upper hand, took control of the KMT, and purged the communist elements from the left wing in a series of massacres. Following this betrayal, the CCP broke out on its own, and launched an uprising in Nanchang in south-central China. While the CCP’s expectations of a mass peasant uprising proved overly-optimistic, pockets of revolutionary communism mushroomed across southeast China for much of the 1920s and up until the mid-1930s. In a series of encirclements, the CCP’s Red Army was forced to go on a fighting retreat from the southeast into the mountains of north-central China around the area of Shaanxi. Immortalized as the Long March, the most powerful group to survive the trek was led by the revolutionary Mao Zedong, and his lieutenant Zhou Enlai. With the past leadership discredited by the failure of the southeastern uprisings, Mao became the de facto leader of the CCP in 1935, and changed the CCP’s tactics from mass uprisings and conventional battles to one of guerilla warfare and building a base of popular support among the peasantry rather than the traditional communist base of the urban proletariat. Cautious of Japanese encroachment into China throughout the interwar period and aware it would be impossible to defeat the KMT outright, Mao and Chiang agreed to a truce shortly before the Second Sino-Japanese War. As the KMT suffered a series of conventional military defeats and were forced back further inland, Mao conserved the strength of the Red Army, despite it ballooning in size as the Japanese became a bigger threat. Following the Soviet invasion of the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo in northeast China and the atomic bombing of Japan in 1945, Mao was able to position himself as a viable alternative for the leadership of China. When the Chinese Civil War resumed in 1946, Mao used evasive tactics and rapid maneuvering to eventually crush the KMT. By 1949, the communists were in effective control of the country, and Chiang and his supporters fled off the coast to the island of Taiwan, where they continued to claim to be the only legitimate government of China.

    With the stunning turnaround of the CCP’s fortunes between 1935 and 1949, Mao became an irreplaceable facet of the communists’ legitimacy in the country, and he was effectively unquestioned as leader despite the theoretical power of the party over the Chairman of the Communist Party of China. Despite this, Mao faced the new problem that he had earned his legitimacy as a wartime leader, and had no experience or great knowledge in building national institutions or a fully functional peacetime economy. However, in the early stages of the economic recovery under the direct control of Mao, from 1949 to 1957, the country enjoyed a miraculous-seeming rebound. Infrastructure and institutions were rebuilt, land was redistributed to the peasants (who remained Mao’s strongest base of support), and much of the property that had been occupied by the Japanese was nationalized. In a few short years, industrial production had improved by a staggering one hundred and forty-five percent, generating tens of billions of yuan in revenue. But, the improvements were somewhat deceptive, as they were not so much caused by a socialist planned economy as they were by the fact that, for the first time in nearly half a century, there was one government with a continuous economic policy for the entire country. The economy reaching an all-time high in 1957, Mao felt justified in introducing a new program of breakneck industrialization to catch up with the rest of the developed world that he called the Great Leap Forward. Receiving absurdly optimistic reports of agricultural and mineral production, the Party Central Committee, at Mao’s direction, pushed quotas even higher, and also raised the punishments for failing to meet the quotas. As a result, nearly forty million peasant farmers were redirected to mines and backyard forges to dig up and melt down as much metal as possible with which to build a new Chinese society. These policies soon backfired; trying to reach the demand of the unrealistically high quotas, much of the metal was of subpar quality and unusable, and with a huge number of farmers no longer farming, there were not enough people to harvest the season’s crops. With the situation exacerbated by a series of droughts and floods, a devastating famine developed. Initially unwilling to admit fault in his policies, Mao removed Defense Minister Peng Dehuai and his “anti-party clique” for criticizing the Great Leap Forward at the Eighth Plenum of the Eighth Central Committee in 1959, replacing him with General Lin Biao. As the famine continued for three more years, Mao was eventually forced to concede that mistakes had been made after tens of millions had died, and at the Tenth Plenum of the Eighth Party Central Committee in 1962, he relinquished control of economic policy to the supporters of Chairman of the People’s Republic of China Liu Shaoqi [11], namely Zhou Enlai, Chen Yun, and Deng Xiaoping. While the Great Leap Forward reversed much of the earlier economic recovery, Mao still remained irreplaceable in the eyes of the senior leadership of the CCP, and he remained paramount leader, retaining policy control in all other areas.

    Immediately after the Liu clique began to manage the economy Mao reached the nadir of his power, but he quickly rebounded. Announcing the Socialist Education Movement in 1963, a movement designed to raise awareness of what Mao believed to be hidden revisionist and rightist elements in the country looking to bring about a capitalist restorage by building up an anti-revolutionary “privileged class” within the party. Mao planned to expand the Socialist Education Movement to all levels of society, to encourage a state of permanent revolutionary class struggle against the forces of reaction and capital, which, besides suiting his ideological beliefs, would allow him to denounce senior members of his own government, then rehabilitate them once they had seen the error of their ways for ‘deviating’ from Mao Zedong Thought. Liu was the first to suffer this fate, and in 1965 he and his clique (with the exception of Zhou) were demoted for being “capitalist roaders.” A startling turn of events considering Liu’s unofficial status as Mao’s second-in-command, Mao reshuffled the leadership structure of the CCP to make Defense Minister Lin Biao the sole Vice Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party, declaring him his official successor and closest comrade-in-arms. Party members deemed by Mao to be mostly loyal but still mistaken in some way were forced to make self-criticisms in the form of a public address or letter, at risk of being demoted or removed like Liu if they did not comply. Soon after, Mao’s expanded movement, known as the Cultural Revolution, was declared. The Central Cultural Revolution Small Group (CCRSG) was formed to help oversee its proceedings, a group that was dominated by Mao’s politically active wife, Jiang Qing.

    As the Cultural Revolution escalated, Mao encouraged students, soldiers, and workers to form paramilitary gangs known as the Red Guards, telling them that they should attempt to forcibly seize power from local CCP officials to form their own revolutionary committees. As the Red Guard were empowered, they began destroying historical landmarks around the country, and hundreds of thousands of Chinese, including senior party members, were attacked for being bourgeois reactionaries or otherwise subversive, with tens of thousands being tortured or killed. While the military leadership of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) were cautious of the Cultural Revolution and were able to maintain discipline in their ranks for the most part, they were also stopped from preventing the Red Guards from doing anything, as Mao continued to actively support them. By 1967, various Red Guard factions had developed bitter rivalries, and began engaging in shoot-outs with each other, as weapons were widely distributed from raided PLA depots. As tensions between the CCP bureaucracy and old guard, and the CCRSG and Red Guards grew worse, Mao declared that the matter should be resolved by a civil war, and told the PLA to support “the left” without specifying rather that was the CCP or CCRSG. Without any clear central authority and with local governments being taken over by the Red Guards, regular Politburo meetings were cancelled, with the CCP being factionalized between Jiang Qing’s CCRSG and Lin Biao’s Working Group of the Central Military Committee (WGCMC).

    Despite having been married to Mao since 1938, Jiang Qing’s entry on to the political scene came as a surprise to many, as she had appeared politically uninvolved up until then. Rather than out of any personal disinterest, this had rather been because of an agreement made that she would prioritize her wifely duties and support Mao’s career for thirty years before entering politics herself. Once put on the CCRSG, Jiang took advantage of the position to act as the spokeswoman for Mao’s policies and the Cultural Revolution, though she often ‘interpreted’ what Mao said to support her own positions and improve her power at the expense of the established members of the CCP. This made it difficult for the party old guard to overtly criticize or weaken her, as they could never be sure when she was actually operating on Mao’s unquestionable orders, and when she was using her own interpretations to further herself. An advocate of the most extreme tendencies of the Cultural Revolution, Jiang was at odds with Lin. A leading general during the Chinese Civil War, Lin had managed to slide his way up to the position of Mao’s designated successor despite persistent poor health and a complete disinterest in politics. Having received both neurological damage and manic depression during the war, Lin had consistently tried to talk Mao out of appointing him to higher and higher positions from the 1950s onward. Mao rarely listened to Lin’s self-deprecation, however, as he considered Lin one of his most loyal supporters, and that was indeed true, or at least in public; Lin had intentionally cultivated a reputation as submissively and sycophantically pro-Mao, and helped implement his policies despite his frequent private criticisms of Mao, the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution. Rather than live out his days in intentional mediocrity, Lin instead found himself as the figurehead of the CCP’s and PLA’s ‘conservatives,’ those who were anti-Jiang, and anti-Cultural Revolution. While still paying lip service to the Cultural Revolution, Lin worked behind the scenes to minimize its effects on the PLA and curtail Jiang’s influence. But, by 1971, Lin’s power had begun to decline. With the PLA being the only stable institution left in the country, Mao was paranoid that Lin would use the possibility of a war with the Soviet Union to supplant him as paramount leader or even launch a military coup. Mao also believed that Lin’s opposition to opening relations with the United States was part of scheme to maintain a war footing and empower the PLA [12]. Deciding to do away with his Vice Chairman, Mao went on a whistle-stop tour of southern China to meet with regional CCP leaders to prepare them for Lin’s demotion and removal from the party. However, this decision prompted secret plans for an actual pro-Lin military coup that the man himself did not even know was happening.

    Receiving a prestigious education and quickly rising through the ranks of the PLA in large part due to nepotism, Lin Liguo, Lin Biao’s son, was the deputy director of the Office of the Air Force Command, in the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF). Having come of age after the Chinese Civil War had ended and with no great respect or admiration for Mao, Lin Liguo had a self-confidence that bordered on the egomaniacal, using the chaos of the Cultural Revolution to take control of part of the PLAAF’s bureaucracy and using its budget to go on vacation and host parties for his clique of air force officers. However, Lin Liguo also held genuine political beliefs, being a firm supporter of Marxism-Leninism, and believing that Maoism had proven itself a catastrophic deviation from a proper communist society through the disasters of the Cultural Revolution. Catching wind of Mao’s plans to remove his father, Lin Liguo made a secret plan titled Project 571 [13] to assassinate Mao and have his father take over the country. In the outline of the plan, Liguo denounced Mao as “a paranoid and sadist” whose ideology amounted to “a Trotskyite clique… [and] social fascism.” However, the outline was more of a political polemic rather than a detailed plan to seize power, with only a handful of air force squadrons and army divisions being considered loyal. While Lin Liguo prepared to assassinate Mao, Lin Biao was at the family compound at the resort town of Beidaihe. On September 8th of 1971, on the verge of Lin Biao being purged from the party, Li Liguo forged his father’s signature to present orders to try assassinate Mao. Lin Liguo and his collaborators began to prepare various possible methods to kill Mao, including attacking his train with flamethrowers and bazookas, a napalm attack, walking up to Mao and shooting him, blowing up fuel tanks attached to the train, or dropping a bomb on the train, among other proposals. However, the matter was complicated by the fact that few in the group were totally committed to assassinating Mao, and one conspirator, a pilot, rubbed salt and chemicals into his eyes so that he would not have to fly the plane if they decided to drop a bomb on the train. Without any serious consideration for a plan, on September 11th of 1971, Lin Liguo and his collaborators eventually settled on the idea of attaching time bombs to the undercarriage fuel tanks of Mao’s train while it was in Shanghai, after realizing that they would not be able to get any heavy armaments into position. A plan to launch a simultaneous attack against Jiang’s Beijing villa was abandoned for similar reasons, and also because they could not find anyone willing to do it.

    Able to access the security perimeter due to their high military rank, Lin Liguo left his air force officers to plant the bombs, while he left for Beidaihe, contacting Lin Biao’s closest generals (namely Wu Faxian, Li Zuopeng, Huang Yongsheng, and Qiu Huizuo) to meet them there. In an atmosphere of general confusion and with Premier Zhou Enlai investigating the strange happenings around Lin Biao, reports began to trickle in that Mao’s train had derailed. Without a clear idea of what was happening, Lin Liguo took his father and his mother, Ye Qun, along with the generals, on board Lin Biao’s private jetliner to the south in Guangzhou. During the flight, Lin Liguo tried to convince the generals to declare a rival government in Guangzhou, but they were uniformly horrified that Lin Liguo had actually attempted to assassinate Mao. Made complicit in the attempt by simply being on the plane, Lin Biao and the generals decided that the best course of action was to re-route to Hong Kong. Although the Lin clique did not yet know it, by the time they touched down in Hong Kong in the early morning of September 12th, Mao Zedong’s death had been confirmed to senior members of the government [14].

    Despite having no actual role in it, Lin Biao found himself the mastermind of an attempt to take over the country [15].

    Mao and Lin - Copy.jpg

    The paramount leader of China, Mao Zedong (left), with his designated successor, Lin Biao (right). With Mao threatening to remove Lin from office, an amateurish conspiracy of air force officers developed around Lin that ultimately succeeded in assassinating Mao, but failed to take power due to a total lack of popular support, including a lack of support from Lin himself.

    Overnight, China became enveloped in chaos. Its paramount leader was dead under mysterious circumstances, and his only legal successor was missing, having left the country for reasons unknown. In the immediate aftermath, Zhou Enlai became the de facto leader of China, using his immense legitimacy within the CCP and his de jure title as head of government to assert some semblance of authority, while Jiang Qing gathered together her own supporters from the CCRSG and the Red Guards. But, with China rudderless, it presented the perfect opportunity for India to resolve the crisis in East Pakistan.

    Throughout the summer of 1971, the armed forces of the Bangladeshi Provisional Government, the Mukti Bahini, had changed gears from conventional battles with the invading Pakistan Armed Forces to guerilla warfare after early defeats and with the encouragement of the Indians. Despite Yahya Khan’s faith in the expediency of mass slaughter, stiff resistance continued, and by September, his position had become completely untenable. As millions of refugees continued to pour in to India, Indira Gandhi and her administration began giving more and more obvious military assistance to the Provisional Government; her economists had concluded that a war to clear the Pakistanis out of Bangladesh and then sending all the refuges back would be cheaper than putting up with a long crisis, and they were looking to provoke Pakistan into attacking India. India was also bolstered by the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation, which was signed in August. With intentionally very vague wording, the Indians could still claim to be part of the Non-Aligned Movement, while the Soviets made it clear that they would become involved if either the Americans or the Chinese did. However, in international forums, the Soviets made it clear that their priority was a peaceful resolution and the continuation of a united Pakistan, supporting various motions put forward by the Arab states in support of the Pakistani position. Mao’s assassination on September 11th effectively knocked the Chinese out of contention, guaranteeing the Indians that the Chinese would not militarily interfere. But, the final nail in the coffin for Pakistan was the withdrawal of all American military and economic aid at the end of September. An early and forceful push from McCarthy to end all aid in May may have forced Yahya Khan to concede to the AL’s six points and keep Pakistan unified. Instead, the fumbled response stretched out American bureaucratic infighting and attempts to broker a peace deal for months, by which point neither side was willing to negotiate. With American withdrawal, economic obliteration for Pakistan was guaranteed by 1972, by which point they would have to pay off all its foreign aid debt to the United States to the tune of several hundred million dollars, or default on its loans to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Either way, it would drive the nation to bankruptcy.

    With nothing left to lose, and already effectively in a state of undeclared war in the east, Yahya Khan made one last gambit to decisively win by launching a pre-emptive strike against India in October. Betting that the international community would not allow a war to go on for long, Yahya Khan planned to take as much Indian territory in the northwest as possible, and exchanging it for Bangladesh. Emulating the Israeli attack on Egyptian airfields prior to the Six-Day War but with much less success, the Pakistani air force bombed Indian airbases near the border. Making paltry initial gains in the west, the Pakistanis were completely overwhelmed in the east. As Yahya Khan had predicted, it was a short war due to international pressure, but one the Indians decisively won, and a ceasefire was declared soon after the Pakistani military presence in the east surrendered [16].

    Although none of Asia’s crises would be fully resolved by the end of 1971, the Sihanouk purge, Bangladesh Liberation War, and Lin Biao conspiracy redefined the balance of power in Asia, and not necessarily in America’s favour. Leaving a neutralist regime in power in Cambodia and cutting ties with Pakistan left the United States with exactly two allies on mainland east Asia: Thailand, and South Korea. And, with China embroiled in a power struggle, a potential rapprochement was delayed indefinitely.

    If nothing else, the Vietnam War provided a clarity of who was America’s allies and who were their enemies – at least at first – but with the war over and Asia still embroiled in conflict, people wondered if that had ever been true to begin with.

    [1] IOTL, the local CIA mission gave approval for the coup, in an attempt to limit North Vietnamese military access to South Vietnam. After being pressured by Sirik Matak, Lon Nol abolished the monarchy, and ruled as military dictator before a coalition between Sihanouk and the communists under Saloth Sâr (later and more commonly known as Pol Pot) toppled him, and Sâr's Khmer Rouge regime came to power. It is unclear if the Nixon Administration gave approval or were even aware of the planning stages of the coup. However, ITTL, with the American presence withdrawing and operational control being centralized under McCarthy's appointees, the information made its way up the chain of command. Ironically, In Tam, who Sihanouk is now reliant on to govern, supported the coup after it happened IOTL.

    [2] The North Vietnamese actually did try to assassinate Saloth Sâr in November of 1970 in this way. However, due to Lon Nol’s successful coup IOTL, the communists groups and Sihanouk’s Sangkum worked together to depose the new regime, and so the split was not quite as drastic as ITTL.

    [3] The Muslim tribal militia attack against Jammu and Kashmir remains highly controversial, as India believed that the tribals were encouraged and equipped by the Pakistani government, while Pakistan insisted it was a show of spontaneous patriotism, and that the modern military hardware they had must have been gotten from sympathetic members of the military not acting on the government’s orders.

    [4] To put the sheer size of the INC’s victory into perspective, it won three hundred and sixty-four seats and forty-four percent of the vote. The runner-up, the Communist Party of India, won sixteen seats and three percent of the vote.

    [5] The Nehru-Gandhi political dynasty was not biologically related to Mohandas Gandhi.

    [6] There was also no biological relation between Ayub Khan and Yahya Khan.

    [7] Contrary to his far left campaign rhetoric, Bhutto was a centre-left social democrat with authoritarian tendencies, and he privately assured the Americans that he would continue to work with them and the military junta.

    [8] IOTL, President Nixon and his National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, quickly decided in April of 1971 that they would publicly support Pakistan, while privately pressuring them into a negotiated settlement. They believed a quick negotiation would stabilize Pakistan as much as possible under the circumstances, and would prevent India from gaining too much power, which Nixon and Kissinger believed was effectively a Soviet puppet state. Their decision was based off of their race to normalize relations with China before the next presidential election, Nixon’s favourability toward Pakistan as an American ally, Nixon’s personal dislike of Indira Gandhi and racism against Indians (which, bizarrely, did not seem to extend to Pakistanis), and a prioritization of policy goals over humanitarian concerns.

    [9] The pro-Soviet Communist Party of India (CPI) was distinct from the Communist Party of India (Marxist), or CPI (M), which was supporting the Nexalite Maoist revolutionaries in eastern India. India’s far left had a tendency to use very similar names. Besides the Communist Party of India and the Communist Party of India (Marxist), there would also eventually be the Communist Party of India (Maoist), the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist), the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation, and the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) New Democracy, among others.

    [10] Wang would strangely become the leader of those Chinese who collaborated with the Japanese during the Second Sino-Japanese War. He was very pessimistic about China’s chances of winning against Japan, and claimed that western imperialism was a greater threat to China than Japanese aggression while in the midst of a war with Japan. There was almost certainly a self-serving element to Wang’s defection as well, so that he could finally be in power instead of his old rival Chiang.

    [11] Liu’s title of Chairman of the People’s Republic of China was distinct and lesser to Mao’s title of Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party.

    [12] Ironically, according to Lin’s private staff, he actually supported working more closely with the United States, but publicly condemned the idea, as he thought that was what Mao wanted.

    [13] Project 571 was chosen as the name as, in Chinese, ‘571’ is a homophone of ‘armed uprising.’

    [14] IOTL, Mao rescheduled his route and left a day early, before the Project 571 conspirators had actually decided what they were going to do. Official Chinese government sources claim that after Mao’s train left early the conspirators attempted to attack Mao’s train further down the track, while most third party sources believe that the attempt on Mao’s life never left the planning stage, although further last-ditch plans were drawn up once Mao arrived in Beijing after leaving from Shanghai early.

    [15] The historiography of the Lin Biao incident is highly controversial. According to official Chinese government sources, Lin Biao himself was a power-hungry militarist who was deeply involved in the conspiracy from the start. Other sources (usually from Western, anti-communist leaning circles) claim that Lin Biao was marginally involved but that most of the planning was done by Lin Liguo. I have followed a more recent historiographical trend of the Lin Biao incident that began in the mid-1990s that was corroborated by several historians and researchers that indicate that Lin Biao himself had no actual knowledge of the attempt, and that the whole thing was an incredibly amateurish attempt by Lin Liguo and his clique of air force officers to prevent his father from being removed from power. This viewpoint was primarily laid out in The Culture of Power by Jin Qiu, Bringing the Inside Out by Adrian Luna, and The Tragedy of Lin Biao by Frederick C. Teiwes and Warren Sun.

    [16] This is very similar to what happened IOTL, but with China indisposed, the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 took place two months earlier.
     
    Ah, After 10,000 Years I'm Free!
  • Hello everyone, I’m here and not deceased!

    You may be wondering where I’ve been. Basically it was a matter of having too much going on, but not wanting to admit that I couldn’t get everything done, so instead I decided that I would put it off for a bit without saying anything, since if I never said anything about putting it off then I wouldn’t have to deal with the scrutiny of putting it off, but instead it reached a point where I had put it off to the extent that an explanation would’ve been expected, so I put off coming back indefinitely to give myself the time to course correct, but instead the ever-growing gap of time made it more difficult to come back.

    So there you have it, and in one overly long drawn out sentence too.

    What motivated me to come back, besides it being literally a year since I had last been seen on the site, was that someone I explained all this to went and forced me to listen to them reciting all the kind and wonderful things that have been said about Give Peace A(nother) Chance since my disappearance. I was blown away by the quantity and recentness of comments made referring to the two versions of GPAC, and I knew I owed it to both myself and all of you to come back.

    Now, I don’t intend to immediately revive GPAC, and chances are I won’t resurrect it for a while yet, as there are other projects unrelated to alternate history that I’m working on, but I do have other plans in mind. I’m going to take some time to just be active on the site again, and then I’m thinking of doing a smaller, more manageable TL that’s on a regional rather than global scale (though due to my fixation on m a x I m u m h I s t o r I c a l a c c u r a c y that might end up becoming a GPAC-level project in of itself). The Cold War does remain my area of expertise though. I’m thinking something about Egypt.

    So that’s everything. I apologize that it took me this long to turn around on this, but also it warms the cockles to know I was missed in that time. Stay frosty.

    <3
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top