Reply #50: All of the best politicians Are Ruthless and Driven [View All]

Otherwise they are rode out of town on a Rail. As to "Kennedy's" Program, yes he month Civil Rights and proposed bills, Kennedy spent NO political Capital on getting them passed. Would Kennedy have forced the Senate to withstand a 90 day Filibuster? Not the Filibuster adopted in the 1970s where the Senate can go on to other business while the Filibuster stands, but the Filibuster that existed in the 1960s where the Senate had to stay on that one subject till either the Filibuster was defeated OR what what was being filibustered was withdrawn. For 90 days the US Senate did NOTHING, literally nothing for there was no debate on Civil Rights during that 90 days and nothing else was done either (An argument can be made that 90 days was lost to any debate on intervening in Vietnam, an argument that should have been made in the election year of 1964 but was not).

To take the country into such a Filibuster was tough and to break the filibuster was tougher, but LBJ did BOTH. Without his efforts the Civil Rights Act would NEVER have been passed, neither would have the Voter's Rights Act nor the Constitutional Provision to Ban Poll Taxes.

Yes, Vietnam was LBJ's debacle and he even knew it going in, but Remember Vietnam in Context. Today we remember Vietnam, even through it was over 30 years ago, but just 20 years before Vietnam you had the "Who lost China" Argument and the "Who lost Eastern Europe" Argument (And the "Who lost Cuba" argument was making its round). In both cases the GOP made the argument both were lost but Liberal Democrats and had a Republican been President neither would have been lost (I know that is false but that was the political argument). LBJ had to face that music, even Kennedy had to face that Music. Once you understand the level of GOP support for Vietnam and the GOP use of the "Who lost China" and "Who lost Eastern Europe" Argument there was NO way that any President (Democratic or Republican) could leave another country fall to the Communists like Cuba had in 1959 (Which revived the "Who Lost" arguments). In Simple Terms after Cuba fell to Castro in 1959 the US was NOT capable of NOT intervening in any other country to prevent the Communists from taking over that country (Just look at Kennedy's inauguration Speech where he said the US was willing to endure any hardships to help another country "resist" communists).

By the 1960s No President could take the political hit for losing another country to Communists (In Fact it was a Democratic CONGRESS that finally forced the US out of Vietnam NOT President Nixon of Ford). Thus no matter was elected in 1960, the US was going to send in troops to any country whose troops would not stop a communist take over (This was as true for Nixon as for Kennedy).

In the Case of Vietnam, the biggest obstacles to the introduction of US Troops was South Vietnam's President Diem. Diem knew that US intervention would undermine his Political fight with the Viet Cong, but the US did not believe Diem was capable of preventing the Communist from taking over Vietnam (In many ways Diem was viewed as another Batista). Thus to permit US intervention Diem had to go, let Diem let Vietnam to fall like Batista let Cuba fall to Castro.

Once Kennedy approved Diem's assassination the US was intervening. The first lead to the Second, the Second would not occur without the first. The Situation in 1963 was not yet critical but we knew North Vietnam was going to start organizing the Viet Cong into Battalions and higher level units within a year (Much like Castro had done in Cuba in the Mid-1950s). Once formed into such larger formations the war was going to escalate and the South Vietnamese Army in 1963 was not capable of winning such a war (It was barely holding its own at the company level attacks of the early 1960s). The only way to defeat these new Viet Cong formation was to use US Ground Troops. Diem opposed the introduction of US Ground Troops and thus had to be removed to permit introduction of US Ground Troops.

LBJ thus inherited Vietnam with its leadership removed by Order of Kennedy and was ready to fall to the Viet Cong. Diem may have been able to delay it a few years through his political skills, but once Diem was removed there was NOTHING in the leadership of South Vietnam that could have stopped the Viet Cong (Much like Batista had not permitted any strong opposition within his ruling group of his Dictatorship). Without anyone capable of leading South Vietnam the Leadership of South Vietnam had to permit US Intervention to save itself from a Communist takeover.

Diem's assassination was the first step US intervention in Vietnam. Kennedy ordered the assassination knowing that this would throw US Troops into Vietnam within two years of Diem's Death (Such an intervention might have worked in Cuba in the 1950s had the US Removed Batista and intervened like the US had done before in Cuban History). LBJ had to follow the path Kennedy had paved. Once Diem was gone, the only the way the US could NOT have intervene was NOT politically possible in the US (Basically leave Vietnam fall in 1965 to the Viet Cong, which would have added Vietnam to the list of Countries the GOP claimed the Democrats left fall to the Communists). Vietnam ended up killing LBJ's presidency but it was a path paved by Kennedy and forced on both by the political situation in the US in the late 1950s and early 1960s.