The initial Hubert Humphrey foreign policy emphasized two things, disengagement from Vietnam specifically, and disengagement from regime support generally. The South Vietnamese Government was massively, horribly corrupt. Some even figured them a bigger threat to South Vietnam then North Vietnam and the Viet Cong combined. Aid would be expended to allies, but actual troops would be kept to a minimum given the American distaste for "
foreign adventures" Vietnam had caused. Humphrey tapped Richard Helms, then Director of the CIA, as Secretary of State, an unusually move at the very least. Helms was a nonpartisan public servant, working for the CIA in some capacity since the Truman years. Humphrey wanted a more secure link between the intelligence coming into the country, and the decisions that were made because of it.
Alongside Helms was National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, a former associate of New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, who was the one to recommend the man to join Humphrey's Administration. Kissinger was notable for preaching a
détente with the Soviet Union when it was rather unpopular in the upper echelons of the US government, at least at the time. Kissinger also made the recommendation of the US working over the People's Republic of China toward their side, and pitting the two biggest Communist countries against one another, and idea frigidly received by the rest of the Humphrey Administration. Probably the most controversial idea the man proposed was of using the CIA to dispose the Chilean government in the event of the Presidential election being won by the Socialist Salvador Allende. Humphrey excluded Kissinger from the Cabinet after that idea, instead funding an eventual Radomiro Tomic victory, and Kissinger stuck around mostly powerless until the midpoint of the Howell Administration where he was let go.
The biggest success in Asia was when Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) seceded from (West) Pakistan after heavy grievances from it were treated with excessive military force, and India (backed by the US, Great Britain, and France) forced the Pakistan government to submit and remove their military presences. Unfortunately Humphrey's hands-on foreign policy died with him, and for the fourth time in a row, a new Democratic President moved to make changes in how it was conducted.
With the premature death of Humphrey, and Howell now in office, the foreign policy was handed off to Richard Helms and the State Department. The new President was mostly informed about the administration's policies, domestic and foreign, but Howell lacked the "
intellectual rigor" (in his own words) to pursue an overarching foreign policy. Instead the new President and Vice-President worked to combat the domestic issues that were weathering down the nation, poverty, racism, urban crime, drugs, and such. Helms, who's intelligence background made him convinced how essential trust was to a working team, took the President's delegation of essentially the whole realm of foreign policy very seriously. He never kept the President out of the loop, and, even when Howell started to side with Henry Jackson over the issue of
détente with the Soviet Union, always tried to pry the President more toward soft tactics against the threat of Communism, often times aggravating the President to no end.
The continued "
soft power" approach meant more funding was put toward electing American allies who could both keep the Soviet-backed groups, or those assumed to be pro-Soviet, out of power. It meant that the groups they'd back would have to be ideologically flexible, in order deliver some economic relief to the kinds of voters who flocked to the Socialists and Communists. Usually they were Christian Democratic groups in Europe and Latin America, who mixed economic leftism with religious anti-communism. Often times, when the far left groups were close into power, the CIA would harass the opposition to put up a united front. When dealing with a legislature of double digit parties, in say Italy, where they ranged from far left to far right, it required some very strange coalitions.
The biggest failure in the Howell foreign policy front was the beginning of the Chilean Civil War in 1976, where the newly elected leftist government was couped by a military cabal, lead by General Roberto Viaux, and the nation erupted into a war between supporters of the elected Government, including former President's Alessandri and Tomic, and anti-Communists who saw the election of Allende as a danger to the nation. The late-term Howell Administration wasn't quite sure what to do, act decisively now and possibly hand over a quagmire to their successors, or fail and let the situation develop into a quagmire. Eventually they decided to blockade the country, hoping to pressure the coup instigators to quit. The MacBride administration began by continuing that policy, and overseeing the reconstruction of the country after the short, but painful, fighting.
Richard Helms continued on as Secretary of State until mid-1977, when the fighting stopped in Chile and he felt he was no longer needed or welcomed. While MacBride held no ill will against the man, the two didn't have the same kind of relationship as Howell and Helms did. The new President had no need to rely on Helms, having plenty of his own men he could rely on for political advice. He was urged to appoint Texas Senator George H. W. Bush as his Secretary of State, and even Helms suggested the man would be a good replacement. So, MacBride called over his Senate colleague from a few months back and asked him to join the cabinet. Despite some controversies at home, mostly regarding his son, Bush was passed by the Senate easily.
MacBride wasn't the most worldly man in office, but he was a quick study and very stubborn. He was far more engaged then Howell, leaving domestic affairs alone mostly but being very interested in exporting American democracy and freedom. He wanted to make not just America, but the world, a more free place. He was a man of strong morality, despite what his critics hit him with, and did not see allies underneath dictatorships as something to aspire to. This, like his domestic policies, were well-intentioned but mostly unsuccessful. The ideas were there, but they didn't amount to much outside of platitudes and pressuring some allies to liberalize, like the Iranian monarchy: which tipped back and forth between rule by the Shah, nearly dead by this point, and rule by the Parliament, which was gaining in power as the monarchy was hobbled by the lack strong opposition from the once all-powerful Shah.
---
But ultimately the people didn't care about foreign policy. They cared about the economy, what their Presidential candidates had to offer, and what the situation looked like. The political aura of 1980's America was somewhat odd. An unpopular President presiding over a decent economy, with little actual successes behind his back. Normally a good economy and a lack of scandals would be an autopilot victory. Not so in this year.
A reverse of four years emerged, the incumbent Republican President now faced a Democratic challenger who cleared away his more well known and traditional primary rivals for the nomination. It was a battle of wits, personality, region, and histories. MacBride represented the Libertarian faction of the Republican party, which stressed low government in business, in the bedroom, everywhere. They championed peace and economic liberty as panaceas for the worlds problems. Jackson represented what some derisively were calling "
wardoliberalism" (a portmanteau of "
war", referencing Jackson's known hawk views, and the German "
ordoliberalism", referencing his claims in one interview that he viewed that as the ideal form of liberalism). "Wardoliberalism" became shorthand for a mixture of anti-communism and a commitment to protecting democracy and human rights with America's might. Political activist David Nolan described it as "
the worst excesses of economic and bedroom statism [...]
the Democrat's won't be happy until the government has complete control over the economy, over what you're allowed to do in your home, what you're allowed to think, it's a rancid belief."
The economy was doing ok. After some unstable years it was finally growing at a constant pace. MacBride was able to take credit by not actually taking credit, claiming that the Presidency had grown beyond its means, and the reduction of power allowed other parts of government to do more. Some took this as an admission he wasn't responsible for the economy, the Democratic Congress was. Despite winning his primary, the Republicans were rather pessimistic about MacBride. Sure, he had conceded more to the Democrats and gotten more done, sure he had tried to appeal to the party mainstream by adopting some measure of 'statism', but many were just not quite comfortable trusting him for a second term. Many conservative voters were swayed by Henry Jackson.
Anti-busing, strong on defense, Jackson had encouraged a lot of Republican voters to come to his side. He was a main reason why the National Conservatives weren't interested in running, he was legitimately popular among their base and could hobble them in their first run. However, if he attracted Republicans and Conservatives, he alienated black and youth voters (who were a bit turned off by his rhetoric of a "
War on Drugs", by use of military for combating drug trafficking, later repudiated as a "
gaffe" by the candidate). There was also the health issue. Henry Jackson was seventeen years older then MacBride (Macbride being born in 1929, Jackson in 1912) and he looked rather old and sickly at times. People didn't want another President to die of illness, nor elect a dying man to office.
Eventually, the choice was made for the safer candidate. One who didn't alienate Americans with talk of war and "
taking the fight to them [the Soviets]." Jackson was probably more liked then MacBride, but ultimately deemed not to be the better choice.
MacBride won a victory that seemed to be an endorsement of his libertarian ideals over the Waroliberal New Deal and Social Conservatism of the Democratic ticket and party in General. MacBride made several inroads into the south taking states such as Mississippi and Arkansas which had, a mere four years before rested firmly in the Howell column. This may have been down to the pro-abortion stance of Birch Bayh which was played up in the South by Southern Republicans (despite the head of the Republican ticket being also quite pro-abortion.) This lead many to speculate that the Democratic iron fist grip over Dixie was finally loosening. This prediction would either be rubbished or proved wrong.
This rise in Republicanism in the South seemed to be at the expense of the Republicans in the West. The east coast (bar California) was dominated by the Democrats who also won Arizona, California and New Mexico for the first time since the 1964 rout. This was put down to the perceived western roots and populism of Jackson (his 'conservative' credentials were intentionally and unintentionally made an issue of the campaign which saw many 'Yorty' or 'Pinto' Democrats in the border states swing the Jackson ticket. Republican domination of the North East was cemented with the Democrats falling further behind in past strongholds such as Massachusetts, New York and Rhode Island.
The election was marked by the large levels of negative campaigning by both campaigns; despite the supposed 'optimistic' campaign messages of the Democrats and Republicans ultimately it was an election of fear. People were terrified that Jackson would nuke Russia and start World War III. People were spreading rumors that MacBride was going to pull out of Europe and let the Soviets walk in.
---
Bob Stump was for the first half of his political life a "
Pinto Democrat", which in Arizona parlance meant a rural and conservative member of the Democratic Party who affiliated with the party, often voted in their primary, and would often vote Republican (or at least the more conservative candidate) in the general. In the early days of Arizona, from statehood to the 1950's, the Democratic Party would rule the state almost completely, holding nearly every elected office possible. Often time in the legislature the battle wasn't between Democrats and Republicans, the latter of whom usually held single digits in both houses, but between liberal Democrats and conservative Democrats. The liberals denounced the Pinto Democrats as owned by the "Interests", like the mine and railroad owners, conservatives denounced the liberals as communists, beholden to union bosses and radical organisations like the IWW.
After the election of Barry Goldwater in 1952, the state started to loosen the Democratic Party's grip on the state. An influx of Pinto Democrats came in the 1960's, aided by men like the retired Goldwater. In the 1974 primary election, long time state representative, and WWII Navy veteran Bob Stump won with only 29% of the vote. He won the Senate election over a minor Phoenix councilman and served a fairly forgettable term as Senator. He was seen as distant and unresponsive to his state, a growing western one that needed money and long term support. One of the reason's Carl Hayden served so long was his ability to provide both, even after the state electorate swelled.
So, in 1978, Attorney General Bruce Babbitt announced he would not serve a second term and would instead challenge Stump for Senator. Babbitt, a young and popular state officer, risked a certain career for a semi-long shot candidacy. Eventually neither he nor Stump were challenged in their primaries, the Arizona Conservative Party declining to field a candidate (and in fact endorsing Stump), making the election season extend beyond what was normal for the state.
The main debate was Stump's non-presence in the state, physically and fiscally. Arizona needed more federal monies, argued Babbitt, and a more involved Senator then Stump, who was known as a perpetual naysayer on the topic of spending money, any money outside of the military. The Stump campaign, very little was replied by the candidate himself, argued that a commitment to fiscal responsibility was better for the state economy then high taxation and sealing off state lands, as they claimed Babbitt would support. The Stump campaign made the error of involving Senator Udall into the race, attacking them both and trying to tie Babbitt and him as one radical eco-socialist chimera. Perennial candidate, and Stump spokesperson, Evan Mecham also made an infamous statement where he dismissed Babbitt as a "
Soviet stooge", and Udall as "
a tree-hugging cripple", a crude allusion to the junior Senators Parkinson's Syndrome.
Babbitt's youthful appearance, his strong media presence, and support from Henry Jackson allowed him to snag the Senate seat by a fairly good margin. Stump retired back to Arizona, and made efforts to involve himself more with the people of the state, planning a possible comeback one day. Overall the Congressional results were good for the Democratic Party. They retained both Houses for now in spite of failing to take back the Presidency. 4 new Democrats were elected, 2 new Republicans, and one new Conservative to the upper house. No one would expect the Conservative Caucus to explode in size in a few years.