WI: LBJ does not escalate in Vietnam: effect on US domestic politics

RousseauX

Donor
The US gradually got drawn into Vietnam over the course of a decade or so but LBJ made the key decision to escalate US presence in 1965. The Vietnam war turned out to be perhaps the single most important political issue in the US between 1945 - 2001. It bitterly divided the democratic party against itself, the left against the right in America and fueled political extremism as well as setting the battle lines between red America and blue America from the late 60s all the way up to today. The rise of Nixon, Reagan, Trump and the marginalization of the Democratic party from the 70s to the 2000s all had its roots in the experience of Vietnam.

What if LBJ decides not to americanize the war in 1965 and just keeps advisors and maybe some marines to guard airfields? Let's assume (and this is a big one) that furthermore the Johnson administration does not commit itself to a "Vietnam-equivalent" in another part of the world. Let's say this isn't enough to keep the South Vietnamese government propped up and Saigon falls sometime in the late 60s. Let's say Communism spreads to Cambodia and Laos as per OTL but ultimately the status of Vietnam within the context of Sino-Soviet rivalry leads to something like the OTL power struggle between the PRC and USSR in SE Asia pitting Cambodia against Vietnam. Something like the 1979 Chinese invasion of Vietnam still happens but earlier, in general though let's assume the events in the region simply gets moved up 5-7 years but mostly goes the same as OTL: Deng still comes to power in China and Brezhnev stays in power in the USSR.

How does this affect US domestic politics: does LBJ run again in 1968 (his health was pretty bad and his popularity might take a dip for being "soft on communism") do the democrats still split in 1968? Does LBJ push more social programs on the heels of medicare/medicaid? Is McGovern and his young supporters and Carter still the face of the Democratic party in the 70s or does the new deal coalition stay intact? Do the Republicans still run "law and order" and succeed with the southern strategy? Does Reagan conservatism still take over the GOP by the 80s?
 
Last edited:
See a post of mine from a couple of months ago:

***

I disagree that the US would shift to the right if LBJ had not escalated in early 1965. See https://books.google.com/books?id=YRTeKY1xcVUC&pg=PA323 for Hubert Humphrey's prescient February 15, 1965 memorandum warning LBJ of the adverse consequences of escalation and noting that "It is always hard to cut losses. But the Johnson administration is in a stronger position to do so now than any administration in this century. 1965 is the year of minimum political risk for the Johnson administration. Indeed, it is the first year when we can face the Vietnam problem without being preoccupied with the political repercussions from the Republican right. As indicated earlier, our political problems are likely to come from new and different sources (Democratic liberals, independents, labor) if we pursue an enlarged military policy very long."

The notion that accepting a Communist victory in Vietnam in 1965 would have moved America to the right did disturb LBJ in 1965, but I think he was misguided. He was haunted by memories of how the "loss" of China had led to McCarthyism. But in the first place, 1965 was not 1949 (anti-communism in the US was much less intense); in the second, Vietnam was not China (as of early 1965, most Americans didn't really care that much about Vietnam); and in the third place it is even questionable how much Mao's victory in 1949 would have moved American politics to the right if not for other factors like the nuclear spy cases and above all the Korean War.

What moved American politics to the right after 1965 (apart from racial and other considerations which had little to do with the war) was the way the war caused disunity in the Democratic Party (thus weakening it against the Republicans) and the way it led to an antiwar movement whose tactics and rhetoric were resented by much of Middle America. And of course what hurt most of all was the way the war seemed to be an endless "no win" war. Without the war, there is no antiwar movement as we know it, fewer TV stories about rioting students to outrage the "Silent Majority," and a more unified Democratic Party. And of course there will not be endless US casualties from the war itself. There will still be *something* of a turn to the right in the 1966 elections, but it will probably be less than in OTL.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...er-escalates-in-vietnam.425089/#post-15530166
 
Top