candidates in the 1968 election publicly supported the continuation of the war.
Richard Nixon, for example, advocated “for the use of air and naval power” in
1965 to support South Vietnam; and Hubert Humphrey, the democratic
candidate and Johnson’s vice president, made a U-turn after his initial opposition
to the bombing (Nelson, 2014, p. 49). George Wallace, the independent
candidate, did criticise the big economic burden the war had proven to be for
America, but not the war itself (Bloom & Breines, 2011, p. 315). This shows that
at the time, endorsing the continuation of the war still proved a fruitful strategy
to gain votes.
To measure the extent to which Johnson’s policies aggravated the
divisions regarding the Vietnam War is majorly complicated by several aspects.
The USA had already made prior commitments, which makes the escalation of
the conflict not only his responsibility, but part of a longstanding development
he is not uniquely responsible for. This does not negate the influence his
escalation and Americanisation of the war had on his country’s society. A
generational divide emerged, with students protesting the war while their
parent’s generation was still supportive of it. As time went on, the support for it
declined, especially after the disastrous Tet Offensive (McQuaid, 1989, p. 15).
This would only get more aggravated during Nixon’s time in office.
The American public witnessed a great deal of changes during Johnson’s
presidency, with all of the three issues discussed above contributing to a more
divided society. The extent of these divisions, though, is to be weighted
differently for each aspect. As for the racial tensions, Johnson did what he could
to appease the protesters wishing for a more equal society, while at the same
time trying to not upset more conservative voters. Over the course of this
venture, he learned that appeasement policies rarely go right, with his policies
dividing society among racial lines and additionally dividing the civil rights
12
Made with FlippingBook HTML5