The Truth about Humphrey & 1968

[H2O Man]

A week or so ago, I read an essay on the internet about the 1968 presidential election. The author’s purpose, I believe, was to convince people that it was necessary to vote for Hillary Clinton in the November, 2016 presidential election. However, her essay included a lot of information that was inaccurate, at very best. Thus, the conclusion she was advocating was equally flawed.

While that piece struck me as insignificant, the 1968 contest between VP Hubert Humphrey, the democratic candidate, and Richard Nixon, is a topic worthy of our consideration. Though I was alive at that time, and definitely very interested in the election, for the sake of this essay, I’ll rely upon two primary sources of information:

[1] Lewis Chester, Godfrey, Hodgson, and Bruce Page; “An American Melodrama: The Presidential Election of 1968”; Viking Press; 1969; and

[20 Rick Perlstein; “Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America”; Schribner; 2008.

Over the years that I’ve been a member of the Democratic Underground community, I’ve taken part in numerous discussions about 1968, which I recognize as one of the most important years in American history. I have shelves of books, with either chapters about 1968, or entirely on that topic; books about various political and social participants in the year’s events; and more.

Both the republican and democratic primaries -- especially the Democratic National Convention -- and the general election that fall, were extremely important. And not just in the context of that strange, sometimes beautiful, and frequently tragic year, but in American history.

A brief review: In late 1967, Senator Eugene McCarthy announced that he would challenge the sitting president, Lyndon Johnson, in the 1968 primaries. Early ‘68 was marked by the Tet Offensive. Then, in the New Hampshire primary, McCarthy did unexpectedly well: although LBJ got a larger number of votes, McCarthy won more NH delegates. Soon, Senator Robert Kennedy joined the race.

On March 31, LBJ announced that he wasn’t going to run for re-election. On April 4, Martin Luther King, Jr., was murdered. On April 27, VP Humphrey announced his candidacy. He would opt to run in zero of the democratic primary state-wide races. Instead, he was focused on winning the support of enough delegates in behind-the-scenes meetings, to capture the nomination. RFK was murdered in early June, after winning the California primary.

I suppose that there are a number of ways of seeing the democratic primary contest. For many liberal and progressive party members, the McCarthy and Kennedy campaigns were intense examples of the power of participatory democracy in action. The Humphrey campaign was clearly more of “machine” politics, business-as-usual, or even decisions made in smoke-filled rooms. One thing is sure: Humphrey came out of Chicago as the nominee of a fractured party.

The earlier essay that I made mention of took the increasingly common, yet shallow, stance that Hubert had two conflicting images: a noble US Senator, who fought for Civil Rights, versus a vice president who loyally supported LBJ, including the administration’s unpopular policies in Vietnam. The grass roots Democrats, according to this myth, blamed Humphrey for that loyalty, even though Hubert secretly opposed the insane President Johnson.

The truth is that you can learn a heck of a lot, just from how much such a simplistic view of Humphrey’s campaign leaves out. Let’s take just a quick look, shall we?

Was Hubert Humphrey a noble advocate for Civil Rights? Absolutely. In 1948, he contributed to the Democratic Party’s Platform, on the ethical stance for Americans on racial issues. It is important to remember that there was a division within the party: the liberal-progressive wing believed the federal government needed to take firm stances to advance Civil Rights, while the moderate-conservative party members advocated “states’ rights.” Humphrey was consistent in his advocacy for Civil Rights up through his years as vice president.

Indeed, after the two political conventions, VP Humphrey entered the race against Richard Nixon with a large lead in the polls. The “Happy Warrior’s” campaign would see that lead shrink rapidly, and “the Politics of Joy” fall significantly lower than Nixon’s campaign for “law and order” and a “secret plan” to end the war. How did this happen? More importantly, why did it happen?

We can safely eliminate the candidates’ choices for VP as a significant factor. Nixon picked the relatively unknown (in national politics) Spiro Agnew, who was a pro-Civil Rights governor, and who had led the Nelson Rockefeller semi-campaign for the ‘68 republican nomination. Humphrey picked Edmund Muskie, a highly-respected US Senator. Since we can’t blame Muskie, let’s look at two periods in Humphrey’s career: his service in the Senate, then as VP.

As a Senator, Humphrey was in many ways representative of the best in liberal Democrats of his era. Largely forgotten today is that Hubert was largely responsible for Truman winning the upset over Dewey: Humphrey’s campaigning in northern states earned Truman the votes of enough pro-Civil Rights republicans to turn the election. Humphrey was also an advocate for the poor.

But there was a flip-side. Humphrey was strongly “anti-communist,” something that caused him to strongly support every war the US was involved in after WW2, until his death. In every instance, he viewed the wars as part of the USA versus the Soviet Union. He lacked the insight needed to identify the role that nationalism and anti-colonialism was playing around the globe.

His anti-communism included some rather undemocratic beliefs and actions domestically, as well. He sponsored the 1950 McCarran Act, to make “camps” in which to hold “subversives.” Humphrey favored outlawing communist beliefs: in 1954, he proposed a bill to make membership in the Communist Party a felony. How these things were viewed in the 1950s would change drastically in the 1960s, as the pro-Civil Rights and anti-war movements would be accused of being communists.

During his term as vice president, Humphrey saw his relationships with the democratic Senators he used to work with severely damaged. This was not because college students would flock to the Eugene McCarthy campaign in early 1968. No, it had already happened. Why? When LBJ served as JFK’s vice president, he was compared to “a bull castrated late in life.” When Humphrey was VP, people saw him as willingly castrating himself, to please LBJ.

The lack of meaningful support from his former Senate friends translated into a lack of campaign donations for Humphrey-Muskie. By mid-September, the campaign was broke, and was having great difficulty in getting loans. This was not because Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin had decided to run a pig for president. The responsibility lay solely with Hubert Humphrey.

Thus, on September 30, in a taped interview, Humphrey would finally dare to risk saying he would not continue the war effort exactly as LBJ would. That evening, he called Johnson to give him a warning. Although the president did not tell Hubert, he was already fully aware of exactly what Humphrey had told the NBC reporter. Johnson had spoken with Nixon several hours earlier that day, and an NBC contact had informed Nixon about the interview. Nixon, of course, called LBJ to “warn” him of Hubert’s betrayal, and to assure LBJ that he -- Nixon -- would stay true to the course in Vietnam.

Starting on October 1, Humphrey began to close the gap in the polls. In the final week of the campaign, he came very close to making the election a toss-up. So close, in fact, that Nixon proposed that if neither man won enough electoral votes, they should agree that the winner of the popular vote be recognized as president. Humphrey responded by saying he was in favor of going by the law, and having the decision rendered by the House of Representatives.

Had the campaign gone on for one more day, it might have been a virtual tie. Two more days, had things continued as they were going, and Humphrey would have won.

There are valuable lessons to be learned from studying 1968. They do not include any conclusions that one might reach by twisting or ignoring the facts of what actually happened. In the end, the responsibility for Humphrey’s loss was entirely his own. As the democratic candidate for president, it was up to him to convince the voters that he deserved their support.

[BeyondGeography]

1. If you search, "I've got Hubert's pecker in my pocket," this passage from Nixonland comes up

https://books.google.com/books?id=dM_enWzoghoC&pg=PA267&lpg=PA267&dq=hubert%27s+pecker+lbj&source=bl&ots=6eymq9qMzw&sig=nFhdlnBfzQJmOXryeh2tYdTjK4Y&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iuoGVczsGselgwTju4OgCA&ved=0CCsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=hubert's%20pecker%20lbj&f=false

HH spoke against escalation in Vietnam in 1965 and his reward from LBJ was to be removed from the foreign policy loop. Being LBJ's VP during that time and trying to win an election in 1968 was excruciatingly difficult. You are quite right that HH, or anyone who wants to be President, wins or loses on their own, ultimately. But none are more hamstrung than former/present VP's, and the more challenging the time, the more difficult the task.

[H2O Man]

5. Great point.

Thanks you.

I had thought about including that, and two other things from LBJ's mouth. Closely related to the quote you provided here was one from when LBJ was considering various people to put on the ticket with him for the '64 election. I don't have the source(s) for this at hand, so the quote may not be word-for-word exact, but when he was explaining why he was leaning towards Hubert, LBJ said, "I want a man who will kiss my ass in Macy's, and say that it smells like a rose."

In a sense, LBJ might have been better off not picking Humphrey, because Johnson had bold plans in mind for Civil Rights. Humphrey would have been valuable in the Senate.

While there was pressure on LBJ to pick RFK for VP, there really was zero chance of that happening. There were several reasons why not, and each of these reasons was valid in the sense the two could not stand one another.

Still, there were other options. But LBJ was looking for someone with a character flaw, that he could exploit. That went beyond the normal needs of a president to have a loyal VP. LBJ needed to be able to dominate his VP as a human being. And Humphrey had that weakness of character that Johnson required.

The third quote I considered, one everyone suspected, but that wasn't documented until the mid-1970s, was that LBJ told Humphrey that, if he publicly opposed LBJ's Vietnam policies, he would make sure Humphrey never became president. He definitely meant that, although by May of '68, it is questionable if LBJ could have prevented a Humphrey victory.

LBJ could have done more to support Humphrey.It's likely that he could have manipulated things per Vietnam, to increase Hubert's chances. But instead, he hedged his bet. He helped Humphrey somewhat, but also was in frequent contact with his friend, Richard Nixon. (And Nixon was, of course, betraying LBJ per the attempt to resolve the war in '68.) That strange relationship does suggest that, in many cases, the differences between individual democrats and republicans are not as significant as the public tends to believe.

[Bluenorthwest]

2. 1968, I was but a boy. One day my father and I went to the campaign office to get an RKF poster

and that night RFK was murdered. Rosie, my hero for being there and trying, could not stop it. We spent the night listening to LA local news, polka dot dresses and all that. Next morning we took that poster down, Dad asked me to avoid running for office as an adult and I agreed.
We were outside Chicago during the Convention and again got all the local feeds. The images on the screen were very clearly causing the adults present, working class Democrats all, to realize they sided in the end with the protesters and the reporters who we could see being beaten by the police. My Aunt was correctly certain that Nixon was now unstoppable, bet me a two dollar bill that Nixon would win, not that she supported him God no. But she new the jig was up. I still have that two dollar bill.
My parents really, really detested Nixon, for all the regular reasons plus a few more personalized and local reasons. Casa Pacifica not all that far from us. Mom and Dad loathed Richard Nixon, both were devoted voters. But that year my father did not cast a vote in the election. Dad, who always told people that if they did not vote they had no right to complain about politics, did not vote and of course continued to complain about politics. We teased him about it for years.
Decades later, nearing another election as well as his grave, Dad told me why he skipped voting in '68. He said it was not because he could not stand the compromised Hubert, he'd voted for less than perfect many times and Hubert was far better than Nixon. "I was afraid that when I got in that booth and looked at that ballot without Bobby's name on it I'd start crying right there in the booth and I just couldn't. If I'd been thinking I'd have gotten an absentee ballot and did my voting and crying at home."

It was a hell of a year.

[H2O Man]

9. Thank you.

I really appreciate your sharing this with us.

Last year, my oldest daughter asked me to recommend the "best" book on the 1968 election, for one of her classes at St. Lawrence. Because I had introduced her to RFK Jr. (and his books!), I thought that "The Last Campaign: Robert F. Kennedy and 82 Days that Inspired America," by Thurston Clarke would do.

After she finished reading it, she said it was among the saddest things she had ever encountered. For days, she would talk about what promise a Robert Kennedy presidency had offered this country. And, of course, the question, "Why?" -- why would anyone kill him then? -- kept being asked.

It really was a hell of a year.

[packman]

3. Makes one wonder how history would have unfolded if Humphrey

had been elected president. He was too gentle, to emphatic for the times. I recall a story where LBJ took him hunting on his Texas ranch and how reluctant and repellent he found it to be and was literally browbeaten by Johnson to kill a deer- to pull the trigger. Then, looking back, at that incident we might interpret it as him lacking a backbone and blowing in the wind.

[H2O Man]

11. That was followed by

RFK visiting LBJ at his ranch, and going out "hunting." At first, Robert didn't want to shoot a deer under those conditions. After he finally did, LBJ said, "Well, Hubert shot two of them."

In his own, unique way, Johnson was intensely skilled at evaluating others' personality characteristics. He focused at least as much attention on identifying their weaknesses. And then, exploiting them. And he savaged Humphrey for four years.

The pre-VP Hubert might have made a fair president. Had he served under a different president as VP, he might have grown, and become a good president. But by 1968, Humphrey was damaged goods. It's difficult to imagine that fellow standing up to some of the foreign leaders of that era, or making solid decisions on foreign affairs emergencies.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. It is imperative that folks on the left vote for HRC if she is the nominee...

Other than that I don't see many parallels between the upcoming election and the 1968 one.

[Jim Lane]

10. If Clinton is the nominee, I expect to follow Gene McCarthy's advice to his supporters in 1968

IIRC, in making his endorsement in the general election, he said something like, "I'm voting for Humphrey and I think all of you should suffer along with me."

That perfectly captures my attitude toward a Clinton candidacy.

[H2O Man]

14. I agree that the

essay I mentioned -- which took a "vote for Clinton, or you'll be responsible for electing Nixon" -- was so flawed that it failed to identify any meaningful parallels to today.

The most important thing that a candidate today can learn from Hubert's sad experience is that it is his/her responsibility to convince voters to cast their vote for him/her. Running on any variation of that old "the Politics of Joy" bit showed a lack of appreciation for what the majority of citizens were being confronted with. He needed to be honest about his beliefs on Vietnam. And he certainly had to address the numerous other issues -- some of which I mentioned in the OP -- that concerned not only voters, but many of the people he had been friends with, when he served in the Senate.

Then, like today, voters have not only the right, but an ethical obligation to consider the character of every candidate for any political office. That goes from the lowliest of local elections, to the presidential election.

As long as people vote their conscience, I'm okay with whoever they vote for. I'm confident that, if people would search their own conscience, and evaluate the character of candidates, most elections will be won by democratic candidates. It might even reduce the feeling that many good people have, that their is a need for a third party.

For voters, if we are honest with ourselves, we can understand why -- among others -- there are two groups that we hear from frequently on DU: those who support Hillary, and who will engage in some level of participatory politics, by volunteering for Ms. Clinton's campaign; and those who believe that the choice of Ms. Clinton, as things now stand, feels much more like Humphrey's "winning" the democratic nomination, after not competing in a single primary, which is machine politics

Both sides of this are sincere in their beliefs. It might be beneficial if they focused more on discussing issues -- our nation faces a few tough ones -- and how that relates to their feelings about Hillary, rather than insulting those who sincerely think differently.

Those are just a couple things that I think can be learned from 1968. We could also talk about how conflicts in the Convention rules lead to attempts to institute new rules, and how that conflict festered until 1972, when it damaged the Democratic Party.But I can appreciate that others might not think it of any real value to discuss. And that's okay -- there is always a wide variety of topics to be found on DU:GD, enough that everyone can find OP/threads more to their liking.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. I forgot to mention it in my first response, but discussing '68 without mention of George Wallace

and Curtis fucking LeMay running third Party, taking more than 13% of the popular and 46 electoral votes that year seems incomplete.

[H2O Man]

8. You are absolutely correct!

I just got back in, and read the newest responses to the OP. While I generally try to answer "in order," this merits an immediate response.

I make a mental outline when I write something to post here on DU:GD. Recently, I've tried to keep my essays as short as possible, hoping that more than three friends will read them without falling asleep. The issues involving Wallace (and LeMay) are so important to this discussion, that I decided not to add a paragraph or so on it, because it deserves -- really, it requires -- much, much more. And that is especially true in the context of trying to identify what "lessons" might be applied for 2016 .....as well as how what might appear a potentially similar dynamic, might be as distinct as a "chihuahua from a timber wolf" (to borrow a Nixon quote from '68).

During the 1968 campaign season, the Nixonites hoped Wallace would poison the democratic primaries, but not run in the general election as a third-party candidate. Their reasoning is obvious. But Wallace did run 3rd party, and appeared to pose a substantial threat to take votes away from Nixon. Wallace was more open than Nixon in his appeals to hatred. That included Wallace's being a racist, and his hating the anti-war activists -- especially those he viewed as "hippies."

Wallace had been scoring higher in the polls during the late summer and early fall, than the 13% that he ended up with. In part, the decline he experienced was due to his selecting LeMay -- a man of limited appeal by that point, and of a group that were already strongly in the Wallace camp. Obviously, Wallace couldn't have gotten anyone of the stature of Muskie on his ticket. Still, when he settled on LeMay, it hurt him.

Exit polls in November showed that a surprising number of people who had initially supported RFK actually voted for Wallace. Although I have a substantial number of books on that year's election, none include evidence of that polling asking why a former RFK supporter would vote for Wallace. Thus, I could only speculate on a couple of possibilities.

Wallace, of course, appeared to pose a greater threat to Nixon in 1972 than '68, in terms of his ability to harvest the hatred in America. That threat ended, of course, when he was shot.

[Art_from_Ark]

12. In my little part of the South, in May 1968,

my 4th grade teacher took a poll-- Who are you(r parents) voting for?

Robert Kennedy? Nearly everyone raised their hand.
George Wallace? Hardly anyone raised their hand.
Richard Nixon? Even fewer people raised their hand.

Then in 5th grade, September or October 1968, different teacher but essentially the same students:

Who are you(r parents) voting for?

George Wallace? Nearly everyone raised their hand.
Hubert Humphrey? Hardly anyone raised their hand.
Richard Nixon? Even fewer people raised their hand.

Even the voters in my friend's family down the street had been ardent supporters of RFK prior to June 6, but after that, they switched to George Wallace.

[H2O Man]

15. There was something about

Robert Kennedy in 1967-68 that really appealed to people's basic human goodness. So in mock elections in schools across the country, youngsters had picked up on that energy that RFK was riding on. Those school "elections" weren't just the usual popularity contest/ parrot-the-parents thing they usually are. Rather, it was a measure of Kennedy's promise for those kids' future.

Thank you very much for posting this information about one of those elections. It's much appreciated. And it brings back good memories.

[Art_from_Ark]

18. Regarding the family of the friend I was talking about

I used to go over to his house nearly every day during summer vacation. So on the morning of June 6, I went over to his house as usual, and was shocked to see all of his sisters sitting on the sofa, crying their hearts out.

"What's wrong?"

"Bobby Kennedy was killed!"

It was really traumatic for them.

But later on, his family supported Wallace.

Like you, I do believe that RFK appealed to people's basic human goodness. When he died, the magic seemed to die with him

[Art_from_Ark]

13. Funny thing about being an actual or potential opponent to Nixon in a presidential election--

you might end up getting shot!

JFK-- November 1963
RFK-- June 1968
George Wallace-- May 1972

[lovemydog]

22. I read your posts and don't fall asleep!

I find them enlightening & fascinating.

My dad (who supported McCarthy & voted for Humphrey) tells me that he blames people like his brother (who supported McCarthy & didn't vote in '68) for Nixon. I can see what he's saying, but I tend to agree more with your analysis. First, I blame the people who voted for Nixon. Second, I blame Humphrey for not getting way out in front on opposing the war in Vietnam. Third, I blame those, like my uncle, who didn't vote. Finally I blame Nixon for dragging that horrible war on and on, for the illegal bombing of Cambodia & Laos, and from what I've read, sabotaging the Paris Peace Talks of 1968 only to accept similar terms in 1973.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. It was my first vote in presidential election. I voted Peace & Freedom Party.

I was, and still am, a Democrat. I voted against the war.

I'd do it again.

[H2O Man]

16. Vote your conscience.

Well, combine conscience with intellect.

Who could argue that is wrong?

[lovemydog]

23. I can understand that. I don't know what I would

have done if I could have voted at that time. I think I'd have been very disillusioned that McCarthy and RFK were out of the picture. Who was the nominee for the Peace & Freedom Party?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Eldridge Cleaver

[lovemydog]

27. Thanks.

[Ken Burch]

17. One significant factual error there:

Humphrey did NOT enter the fall campaign with "a large lead". He was actually between ten and thirteen points behind Nixon coming out of Chicago.

This was almost entirely due to Johnson's arrogant insistence that Humphrey force his delegates to back a "stay the course-fuck the primaries" plank on Vietnam.

[CK_John]

19. You didn't note who had served in the military and who didn't. You also don't have a feel for the

era. The cold war, Korea, WWII vets were faced with clean Gene and the beginning of the peace moment. The police riot at the convention. Two delegations from Old Miss, it was a complex time.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. No discussion of '68 and Vietnam is complete without mentioning Nixon and Kissinger sabotaging the

Paris peace accords.

[Hekate]

21. KnR for 1968, a tragic year in so many respects.

Must read your essay tomorrow, H2O Man. I look forward to it.

My friends and I worked for Gene McCarthy that year, saw our hopes shattered over and over. Don't think I ever really gave much thought to HHH's life, thoughts, motives; it was all about RFK and McCarthy and Nixon in our 20 - 22 year old minds. Humphrey came a distant last in our hearts and minds, and we only voted for him because our other heroes were dead or defeated.

[lovemydog]

24. Can someone please explain to me a bit more

how Humphrey became the democratic party nominee?

Did this take place at the convention in Chicago?

Was McCarthy essentially overrun by democratic party hacks?

How did the delegate race stand, going in to Chicago and then coming out of Chicago?

Thanks in advance.

[JustAnotherGen]

26. Thank you for this insight H20 Man

And I will take this post going forward as we move into the primaries when I read your comments re: the field. It stuck with you.