« Things can get worse | Main | Quitting Facebook, now with science! »

November 18, 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

This has me *hoping* that lefties are right about the nature of the American Deep State. Because if they are, even though the folks at the top may be replaced, a lot of what remains in the body will be hard to change.

Unfortunately, I fear that the lefties talking about an American Deep State are about as correct as they were when talking about Peak Oil last decade...

I think a case can be made that a Nixon win in 1960 could severely retard the conservative wing's dominance of the Republican Party.

I agree that 1968 was momentous (I am just old enough to remember it in some detail - I was 10). If Humphrey had won, the world would be different - but I don't think Humphrey would have achieved universal health care. He would have fought for it, but I think it would have gone down in defeat. The backlash against the Great Society programs was well underway by 1968, even before the catastrophe at the Democratic Convention that year, and the southern democrats were already beginning their transition to the other side of the aisle. And hanging over everything there was the black cloud of Vietnam. I think Humphrey would have been a one-term president - he would have been punished by the voters for not "solving" Vietnam in four years.

regarding 1968....

Okay, let us say that Humphrey does indeed get to win and proposes (and gets) universal healthcare and day care. He probably also halts the bombing of north vietnam, calls for a ceasefire and announces an early withdrawal of US troops and pushes for talks on a coalition government in South Vietnam involving the Viet Cong. If he ends effective US involvement in the Vietnam War in say...1969-1970, this gives him space to focus on the domestic agenda.

But the end result is probably the eventual end of South Vietnam between 1972 and 1975, with Humphrey being blamed for "losing Vietnam". This might hinder his chances of re-election and make the continuation or full implementation of his domestic program challenging no?

And what of strategic arms limitations? And opening up relations with the PRC? And the detente/thawing of relations with Moscow?

I'm not sure why I'm revisiting this now, J.H., but your last paragraph makes the 1968 election seem even more important, no?

The comments to this entry are closed.