PoD no earlier than the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, raise up organized and visible conservative opposition in the US to the Vietnam War. Marches, signs in the streets, speaking out against the draft, etc., all done by 'conservatives', Democrat and/or Republican. It could be Dixiecratic 'no Vietnamese ever called me cracker', more generally conservative 'the fight against communism starts at home', whatever you can think of.
PC: Wank right wing opposition to the Vietnam War
- Thread starter RonaldReagram
- Start date
-
- Tags
- vietnam
Maybe if you had the US occupy all of Vietnam, ala Iraq, the Conservatives could come out against more American deaths and be anti intervention. Also wouldn't be the first time conservatives had been isolationist.
So you mean that right-wingers think it's more important to fight Communism in Central America than in Vietnam?
If so, I think that they would certainly prioritize Central America over Indochina, but I don't think it would lead to the kind of opposition that you saw from the left IOTL. Conservatives would want to continue providing financial and material aid to South Vietnam, and even if the US was still sending a few troops over, they wouldn't be marching in the streets against it.
(Incidentally, not to engage in self-promotion, but a long time ago I started a thread called "1960s Antiwar Movement Dominated By Isolationists". There weren't many replies, but one of the points made, I think, was that isolationists were usually anti-Communist, and so wouldn't apply their isolationism to wars against Communism. Lawrence Dennis would have been an exception to that.)
The Old Right‘s corpse was still warm by the Vietnam War. Someone more clever than me could probably find a way to revive it over the course of a decade.
The John Birch Society was still around and joined protests. I have heard Paleoconservatives argue that the real reason they were purged was because of their opposition to the Cold War,opposition to the use of atomic bombings against Japan, and opposition to the intelligence agencies.
The John Birch Society was still around and joined protests. I have heard Paleoconservatives argue that the real reason they were purged was because of their opposition to the Cold War,opposition to the use of atomic bombings against Japan, and opposition to the intelligence agencies.
Last edited:
Well, they did tend to complain a lot!
Seriously, though, I've heard that the Birchers were anti-NATO, but had always assumed that was because they considered the NATO countries in Europe to be scarcely better than Communists.
I don't think I'd ever heard about them being against the Vietnam War, that would certainly be a pretty niche position on the American right, though I don't doubt it's the case.
It's too bad for the GOP that the John Birchers' antiwar stance could not(I assume)have been foreseen in 1964. That would have given Goldwater political cover to placate liberals by denouncing the Birchers, while minimizing criticism from the right by claiming that their surrenderism was a reason for his opposition.
"I think it's reprehensible that we've got groups in this country who are obsessed with accusing their fellow Americans of being Communists, but oppose our efforts to fight against the real Communists who are enslaving the world.)
(Yes, I realize a world in which Vietnam was an issue in 1964 would likely butterfly away the '64 campaign as we know it.)
Don't undersell your own cleverness. The OP is asking for a pretty steep challenge, and I'm not entirely convinced it's possible.
In much the same way that old-school anti-American Tories in the UK were eventually going to side with the vulgar Yanks in the Cold War("If we're gonna lose our empire anyway, it might as well be to people who at least respect private property"), it was probably inevitable that the isolationist Right in the US was gonna come around to foreign-policy interventionism. If nothing else, the long-hair, pot-smoking, and torchings of Old Glory at a typical antiwar rally would probably convince them that the other side was the one to be on.
Back to the OP...
Actually, early in his career, Ho Chi Minh wrote a number of articles about American Blacks, the Klan, and lynchings. Doubt that he ever used the word "cracker", but I'd imagine there's stuff in there that could be quoted to make him sound rather unfriendly toward southern whites.
Which gets me to the larger point...
The Vietnam War was ultimately sold to the American public as an anti-Communist fight. Any significant opposition coming from white conservatives would likely be met with: "You know those outside-agitators who have been burning our cities all over the place? Now they're trying to take over southeast Asia."
Actually, early in his career, Ho Chi Minh wrote a number of articles about American Blacks, the Klan, and lynchings. Doubt that he ever used the word "cracker", but I'd imagine there's stuff in there that could be quoted to make him sound rather unfriendly toward southern whites.
Which gets me to the larger point...
The Vietnam War was ultimately sold to the American public as an anti-Communist fight. Any significant opposition coming from white conservatives would likely be met with: "You know those outside-agitators who have been burning our cities all over the place? Now they're trying to take over southeast Asia."
Last edited:
Thanks for the info on the Minutemen and the Constitutionalists.
But the question is: How do we wank these groups?
And would you happen to know what their reasons were for opposing the Vietnam War?
Even with LBJ in the White House until 1973, I still don't think that gets you an antiwar Right in the same way that you had an antiwar left IOTL. The Republican position would likely be that continuing to prosecute the war is a good thing, but that the Democrats were doing it wrong, mostly because they weren't being tough enough.
marktaha
Banned
Find them - with difficulty. De Pugh against Vietnam because liberation of Cuba more important. Constitution Party gave same arguments as Left - not our war not wanted there corrupt government etc.
Try this idea. The 1964 Democratic Convention becomes more contentious (perhaps over the issue of the Mississippi Freedom Democrats). LBJ determines that he cannot name a liberal stalwart such as Humphrey, cannot name a Southerner, and so turns to every thinking mans candidate, Adlai Stevenson. The convention is a few weeks after the Gulf of Tonkin incident The election goes slightly worse for Johnson who must campaign more vigorously. The added stress plus a few butterflies cause Johnson to suffer a fatal heart attack in February 1965. Stevenson becomes President and scales back addition of troops (IOTL he favored negotiations). However, he dies as IOTL in July 1965 of a massive heart attack such that John W. McCormack become President. McCormack lacks the gravitas to either end the war or effectively pursue it. The lack of effective liberal leadership or an effective liberal agenda breathes new life into the isolationist right. This right opposes wasting American lives in a war pursued by an "illegitimate " President. I view this as all rather unlikely (particularly Stevenson as VP) but it is at least broadly within the contours of plausibility.
A twice defeated presidential nominee would not be chosen as a running mate subsequently.