WI: The Onward March of Progress: Humphrey Landslide in '68

1968 is typically described as a "realignment election", with the triumph of Richard Nixon, the collapse of the new deal coalition, that shaky bond between northern liberals and Southern populists that made the Democratic Party effective, and the Republican "Southern Strategy", which successfully turned the South from a region only contested by the Democrats and various segregationist 3rd parties, to a swing area, and then the most solidly Republican part of the country.
Although many of the gains of Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Johnson remained, liberalism in America after 1968 has been mostly on the defensive, shorn of the populist elements that could have made a truly transformative agenda politically practicable. Moreover, following Nixon's disgrace in Watergate, the Republican Party abandoned statist conservatism, instead embracing Goldwater's libertarian economics combined with unflinching social conservatism, a paradigm that has defined American politics for the last 50 years.
But what if, instead of being besieged for decades, anxious only to retain the achievements of the previous generations, liberalism and progressivism again went on the offensive. What if the reflexive cynicism towards and mistrust of government pervasive in American life post-Nixon never took root? In short, what if Humphrey had won in 1968?



This WI is based on the attached map from the online game "The Campaign Trail", a text-based game where one can alter the outcomes of the presidential elections of 1896, 1968, and 2012 by barnstorming, making speeches, and discussing policies. Unfortunately, the full map, with national popular vote totals and detailed electoral vote information didn't load because of a bug in the 1968 election results generation, which has not been remedied since.
Rest assured, despite the lopsided Humphrey win, that this scenario was played on the game's "normal" difficulty setting, although I did have to run the game several times to get the optimum result. Judging from previous games, Humphrey would've won approximately 50.2% of the popular vote, Wallace 12.7%, and Nixon 37.1%, with Humphrey winning many states by margins of less than 5%.
Iowa is highlighted because it was the last thing I clicked on before realizing that the full results weren't actually going to load.

Screen Shot 2015-07-21 at 6.26.38 PM.png
 
How did this happen, no major involvement in Vietnam, OR Nixon's people's effort to undermine peace deal exposed combined with Agnew's criminality?
 
How did this happen, no major involvement in Vietnam, OR Nixon's people's effort to undermine peace deal exposed combined with Agnew's criminality?
The game begins post-nomination, and the 1st step is to choose your running mate. I chose Connally, to bring back Southerners and moderates. Out of the options for my convention speech, I chose one that hinged around strong economy, and the gains of the great Society, as well as calling for a truce in Vietnam and the racial tensions. As my campaign theme, I chose to emphasize my willingness to end the Vietnam War, while also defending labor unions and American liberalism in general. Overall, I took a moderate pro-great Society stance, while striking a position roughly midway between Nixon's OTL one and Humphrey's OTI one on civil rights. On the Vietnam War, I favored a possible bombing halt, coupled with an immediate return to the bargaining table, while not withdrawing American troops immediately. On law and order issues, I was only a shade to the left of Nixon, with the main differences being in rhetoric, mine more emphasizing civil rights. As you can choose in which states to give speeches and barnstorm, I spent 2 turns out of 25 in Texas, and as the sequence of the questions are fairly regular, stayed in California only long enough to push for a debate, where there is a relatively large chance of trouncing Nixon, massively increasing your poll numbers. After that however, I mostly campaigned in the South, particularly North and South Carolina, where Wallace’s high numbers made a Humphrey win more likely. At the end of the campaign, there is always a choice whether to reveal the rumors of Nixon's sabotage of the Paris peace talks, or to accept his promise that he didn't at face value, as I presume Humphrey did in OTL. I made that sabotage the centerpiece of the last 2 weeks of my campaign, which delivered a massive upswing in Democratic votes.
 
You could do this by doing the impossible and having Goldwater beat LBJ in 64, and Humphrey beating him in a landslide in '68.
 
There are two big questions I would consider. Firstly, how well can Liberalism survive? It was at the high water mark because after 1964, you had huge (Liberal) Democratic majorities in Congress. This eroded the chances of the Conservative coalition to fight back, and lead many in that coalition to be open to negotiation with the other side on issues they had previously been against. This was because they would lose, or they feared losing, and they feared being linked to what Goldwater was in 1964. That allowed the Liberal legislation to get through. However, in the years after, and prior to 1968, the Conservatives came roaring back because of backlash. Potentially that would have been avoided or moderated if not for Vietnam, but that isn't this topic. Secondly, can the Liberal coalition survive against the New Left? The New Left had already alienated older voters and voters who may have been traditionally Liberal, but felt alienated by what had occurred. This was an era when you had people who voted for Roosevelt, supported the New Deal, and all the rest. Except when they talked about the youth and crime and dealing with Castro and all sorts of topics, they sounded like Conservatives. By 1968, that had already set in.

It bears concern, because this is already late in the game. The issues of 1968 have already occurred. The generation gap, etc, have all occurred. The New Deal Coalition was already frayed. Nixon put the hammer in the coffin. If not Nixonian Conservatism, the 1970s may be dominated by a hard core Moderatism. And the Democratic party may or may not become what the New Left made it into, which was a big tent which had lost older Democratic voters, and the working class, but made itself a coalition party for minorities, women, and assorted Liberals.
 
There are two big questions I would consider. Firstly, how well can Liberalism survive? It was at the high water mark because after 1964, you had huge (Liberal) Democratic majorities in Congress. This eroded the chances of the Conservative coalition to fight back, and lead many in that coalition to be open to negotiation with the other side on issues they had previously been against. This was because they would lose, or they feared losing, and they feared being linked to what Goldwater was in 1964. That allowed the Liberal legislation to get through. However, in the years after, and prior to 1968, the Conservatives came roaring back because of backlash. Potentially that would have been avoided or moderated if not for Vietnam, but that isn't this topic. Secondly, can the Liberal coalition survive against the New Left? The New Left had already alienated older voters and voters who may have been traditionally Liberal, but felt alienated by what had occurred. This was an era when you had people who voted for Roosevelt, supported the New Deal, and all the rest. Except when they talked about the youth and crime and dealing with Castro and all sorts of topics, they sounded like Conservatives. By 1968, that had already set in.

It bears concern, because this is already late in the game. The issues of 1968 have already occurred. The generation gap, etc, have all occurred. The New Deal Coalition was already frayed. Nixon put the hammer in the coffin. If not Nixonian Conservatism, the 1970s may be dominated by a hard core Moderatism. And the Democratic party may or may not become what the New Left made it into, which was a big tent which had lost older Democratic voters, and the working class, but made itself a coalition party for minorities, women, and assorted Liberals.

I agree this may have some plausibility issues, but here's my analysis. Humphrey TTL basically ran as Johnson-lite, except for Vietnam, where he followed his OTL position. He essentially varied his message depending on what state he was in, in the north and west, he was his true political self, in the South, Midwest, and certain parts of the upper Midwest, he sounded like a Connally clone. Crucially, he talked about law and order nearly as much as Nixon, even using Nixon's OTL line about supporting desegregation and civil rights, but opposing the Black Panthers and their chaos.

Additionally, while he campaigned as a civil rights liberal on matters of ideals, such as Loving vs. Virginia, and his opinion of the Warren court, on matters of policy, such as bussing and affirmative action, he was far more equivocal. therefore, the populist but relatively socially conservative voters that comprise the majority of the new deal coalition will see the Democrats as the lesser of 2 evils, rather than treating their liberal social policies as outweighing Republican economic conservatism/libertarianism.

Furthermore, after gaining under 70 electoral votes in 2 consecutive elections, as well as squandering a 20 percentage point lead, the Republicans will not be seen as a viable alternative for the next election cycle or two by most moderate voters, especially not blue dog Democrats. additionally, with Nixon now a complete pariah and possibly facing criminal charges due to the revealment of his sabotage of the Paris peace talks, which very possibly handed Humphrey the election, the Republican Party faithful will now adopt more Goldwater-like policies, as exemplified by Reagan, turning off economic populists even further.

If Spiro Agnew is the nominee 1972 with Reagan in the vice presidential slot, as seems likely, to placate Nixonian Republicans and enthuse the conservative base at the same time, Spiro's tax evasion , which had begun by the late 60s at the latest, may be broken early, further ruining Republican chances, particularly if he drags Reagan down with him.

Of course, in the long term, the Republican Party will rebound, and probably elect a president by 1984 at the latest. the crucial thing about a landslide Humphrey win is that the Democrats can use those house majorities they possessed into the 80s in our timeline to actually do stuff, rather than just defend against conservatism. furthermore, because of the nature of Humphrey's rhetoric, and the choosing of a Texan governor as veep, the new deal coalition, while tattered and probably still with a relatively close expiration date, can have a new lease on life.

You think this is plausible, Norton?
 
Last edited:
Peace Negotiation Scenario

Would you think of the prospects of Humphrey actually coming to a quick, peaceful conclusion of the Vietnam War? In the short term, as soon as Hanoi hears the American election news, it will surge troops, knowing that, if Humphrey sticks to his word, the Americans will have little time for counterattack before the new president calls for a cease-fire. Johnson, as a lame duck with no fear of repercussions, will similarly surge American troops as fast as possible, hopefully slowing down the Vietcong and NVA advance. Humphrey may very well surreptitiously continue this for as long as he thinks it is politically possible to do so, perhaps until late February.

At this point, he will restart the Paris peace negotiations, while trying to slander Nixon as much as possible in the media, and the nitty-gritty will begin. A cease-fire will probably be in place within a month, but I don't know about the achievability of some other probable aspects, such as a countrywide democratic referendum on unification, and then a politically neutral transitional government in the event of a yes vote.

Ho Chi Minh will probably veto any peace terms that the US government would be willing to grant, but he was in declining health and could potentially be outmaneuvered by internal rivals, even if he doesn't die earlier than in our timeline. Although treaty negotiations would drag on for a considerable period, neither side would want to actively reopen the conflict, the threat of which would merely be used as a bluff.

Because Humphrey will now hold the keys to peaceful and practically immediate Vietnamese reunification, the US will potentially have more leverage against the North Vietnamese then they ever would on the battlefield, with Ho Chi Minh's famous remark that, "You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end, it is you who will tire of it”, being irrelevant at the bargaining table. Consequentially, the eventual peace agreement could meet in the middle of the 2 sides’ wishes, instead of being essentially dictated by the North Vietnamese, as they were in 1973.

As for a timetable, Humphrey, after attempting to both call for peace and combat the Vietcong at the same time for as long as possible, will actually restart the talks in early March (I see no reason why the North Vietnamese would refuse to negotiate with Humphrey, especially if the American surge continues). A cease-fire would be obtained probably by around March 15, and the slow withdrawal of some American troops would begin shortly afterwards. Depending on how long the negotiations last, the American combat-ready military presence in Vietnam could end anywhere from Thanksgiving 1969 to the end of 1970, but Humphrey would suffer a major PR hit if he delayed longer.

Ultimately, Vietnam would almost certainly be unified, the South Vietnamese political class defeated, and some form of land reform instituted, as the Americans will attempt to rein in their South Vietnamese nominal allies at any cost, to avoid a resumption in the conflict. Whether said state is a democratic one, and that exactly what point on the political spectrum it’s economic policies lie, I do not know. For all intents and purposes, the war, and any reasonable chance of it restarting, will be over by summer of 1969, with reunification possibly beginning as early as 1970, or as late as 1972. Either way, Humphrey will have withdrawn from Vietnam.

In addition to giving him a massive approval boost, the active efforts to seek peace, even before the final treaty is hammered out, will probably slow the radicalization of the baby boomers and the widening of the generation gap between them and the older, more populist members of the Democratic new deal coalition, which means that it could potentially last considerably longer.
 
Top