Bobby

[lsanderson]

mizzlaurajean, davidschroth and I went to see Bobby at the Edina last night.

I was never a supporter of Bobby Kennedy. To me, as an ardent McCarthy supporter, Bobby waited until McCarthy took down the giant, Johnson, and then threw his hat into the ring. McGovern, an even later adopter, would throw his in after Bobby's death. Had Kennedy had the balls to oppose Johnson before his weakness was exposed, I suppose I'd have a completely different view of things. Of course, from here, and the disastrous political convention that would follow, not much of this matters. Motor-mouth Humphrey, beloved native son and sell-out, would be anointed crown prince after selling his soul to Daley, and go down to defeat as would McGovern in the following election, scoundrels and opportunists all to my eyes.

In some revisionists history, I keep hearing that the political tide turned against the Vietnam war in 1968. If the tide turned, why did it take until 1973 for us to pull clear? I do not remember this tide turning, or tide, if it was, must have been from a more distant, lesser planet than even our moon.

Yet again those same warlike planets have engaged us. How soon the young, ignorant, and old and foolish forget.

Comments

[thirdworld.livejournal.com]

A very interesting post. I had no idea he supported that bucnch of Nazis led by McCarthy. Was that time like this I wonder, with all the politicians too afraid to stand up for what they believe in, just as they were about Iraq? From what I know of the time, I think so. The failure is a failure of the entire nation it seems. Very interesting.

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

Eugene McCarthy, not Joe McCarthy.

[thirdworld.livejournal.com]

Yikes, my American history sucks!

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

Public sentiment against the war did generally turn in '68, I'd say. And yet it took five more years.

I think one could say that public sentiment against this war turned in '06. I hope we're not still there in '11.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Please do not take this as being in any way disrespectful of historians: it seems to me that the only people saying that public sentiment turned in '68 are historians who either were already in academia at that time or are young enough that they didn't experience '68 as adults. Out there in the working-class and middle-class world, there were no signs of such a turn that I could see. The people who opposed the war then had been opposing it all along, and were still being called hippie commie agitator traitors.

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I wonder how I picked up the sense that it had. I thought political discourse in 68 was generally - "We need to end the war." I.e. Nixon's plan, etc. Or was that '72?

I was born in '73 and I study the middle ages, so what the heck do I know bout 'nam anyway. :)

[davidschroth.livejournal.com]

As I recall, Nixon ran as the "peace" candidate (Peace With Honor) in 1968.

(Man, my head hurts from typing that sentence).

Given the time span involved, I'll admit my memory might be off...

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

Right. I mean, he was full of it, but the fact that he was successful as a "peace" candidate should indicate something about the current mood on the war.

Generally...

[lsanderson.livejournal.com]

Nixon was full of it and expanded and increased the war effort, all with the general backin of the 'Merican people, especially the "Silent Majority." Peace with Honor rapidly became Victory with Honor.

Your historians are all out to lunch.

It really does not...

[lsanderson.livejournal.com]

It depends on how you define "peace." For Nixon, it means "Lottsa war."

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Your memory of those years, and your politics, matches mine exactly.

I Don't Expect Those in the Vanguard to Notice When the Tide Turns

[davidschroth.livejournal.com]

The tide turninf generally refers to when the vast middle of American political discourse concluded that the Vietnam War was a bad idea.

I'd regard the fact that a candidate for the presidency, from the sitting president's own party, could run on an anti-war platform, and do well enough to make the sitting president decide not to run for re-election, as a more than slightly obvious clue.

MMV, obviously.

Re: I Don't Expect Those in the Vanguard to Notice When the Tide Turns

[lsanderson.livejournal.com]

I think they're revising history even as we're repeating the same mistakes. I do not ever remember polls giving much oposition to the Vietnam war any time during the '60s. What one commie pinko east coast country voted in one primary, has little to do with the "Silent Majority" who favored bombing Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia back into the stone age.

Re: I Don't Expect Those in the Vanguard to Notice When the Tide Turns

[lsanderson.livejournal.com]

Oops, state...

[aelburr.livejournal.com]

I've often wondered at the attempts to lionize the whole Kennedy family over the years and suspect it has more to do with 'what if' than what was.

Don't forget that for those of us growing up during it it's been very hard to get straight answers out of our elders about what was going on and it's only as we come to grips with the complexities of the situation we start to get a grip on it. Had we had the likes of Edward Murrow to help us along it might have come clear sooner but I will freely admit that it wasn't until the '90s that I started getting a reasonable understanding of what actually happened.

Since we're on the topic there are two key points I'd like to present for consideration and opinion:

As more and more often people are drawing parallels between Viet Nam and Iraq it seems to me that while in some ways they are similar in some very fundamental ways the differ. Given the global situation after World War 2 what I can only call massive pissing contests like Korea and Viet Nam were almost inevitable. Our current situation seems far more manufactured. Instead of vast powers unwilling to come to grips directly we now have one power creating it's own enemies generating a state of local anarchy.

Second, though related:
I've said this often but never yet had anyone comment on it. Viet Nam was a war that we officially called a Police Action. The Iraq war is long over and we've been engaged in a police action we keep calling a war. In both cases the approach has been fundamentally flawed by the perceived goals. A successful police action does not prevent a state from being influenced by an outside party and a successful war does not bring stability and self rule to a state. You cannot declare victory in a police action.

It's like they are similar songs in different keys.

Of course you can...

[lsanderson.livejournal.com]

Just as Mort Sahl (sp?) said on the Tonight Show: "Declair a Victory, and pull out." How hard is that? Nixon would do the same thing 5 years later.