American Independent Party?

[BritishDixie]

Would it have been possible for the American Independent Party to finish ahead of the Democrats in 1968, and supplant them, as moderate Democrats moved to the Republicans, and Conservative Republicans and Democrats joined the American Independent Party.

I'm wondering as I have an idea for an alternate timeline possibly using this idea.

[Jerseyrules]

Yes; Wallace was a genius (an evil one), and could win the hearts and support of union voters and blue collar workers with his populist rhetoric.  But he would need to emphasize his support for unions, etc. to get votes outside the south.  If he wanted, he could run to the left of Dems on the economy and to the right of Nixon on social issues, and at least win the Old Confederacy.

[The CINC]

If he emphasized a left-wing economic policy but maintained a conservative stance on social issues he would have created a strong new communitarian party.

If Wallace was elected President in 1968 and his party won seats in Congress, they may have been able to push for a "World War II" style effort to win the Vietnam War. The national guard and reserves would have been called up, the draft would have become air-tight, the country would have been put on a wartime production level, and the military would have been expanded to 20 million men and women.

North Vietnam would have been laid to waist by B-52s, the USMC would have launched an amphibious assault on North Vietnam that made Normady look pale in comparrison while US Army divisions would have invaded North Vietnam from the South.

Unemployment will have remained low if Wallace kept people at work building and rebuilding the infrastructure. He also could implement universal health insurance and overhauled the tax code and the banking institutions.

[Emperor SJoyce]

North Vietnam would have been laid to waist by B-52s, the USMC would have launched an amphibious assault on North Vietnam that made Normandy look pale in comparison while US Army divisions would have invaded North Vietnam from the South.

So, asides from internal civil unrest and massive protests, you've just slaughtered millions. Now what do you do with the massive hulk of Southeast Asia you've just destroyed?

[The CINC]

North Vietnam would have been laid to waist by B-52s, the USMC would have launched an amphibious assault on North Vietnam that made Normandy look pale in comparison while US Army divisions would have invaded North Vietnam from the South.

So, asides from internal civil unrest and massive protests, you've just slaughtered millions. Now what do you do with the massive hulk of Southeast Asia you've just destroyed?

We may would have killed just as many people or less than the incremental strategy we went with going into Vietnam. Had we mobilized the conflict like we did for WW2 and launched an all-out war against North Vietnam, we would have destroyed the conventional forces in 18 months and followed that with a two-year counter-insurgency campaign. The protests really didn't break out until the Tet offensive. But an overwhelming victory in Vietnam would have put an end to the protests.

After the war, we would have invested billions in a reunified Vietnam, building modern infrastructure, modernizing Vietnamese agriculture and industry, and establishing a network of bases there. Vietnam would become another success story like Japan and Korea.

[Emperor SJoyce]

North Vietnam would have been laid to waist by B-52s, the USMC would have launched an amphibious assault on North Vietnam that made Normandy look pale in comparison while US Army divisions would have invaded North Vietnam from the South.

So, asides from internal civil unrest and massive protests, you've just slaughtered millions. Now what do you do with the massive hulk of Southeast Asia you've just destroyed?

We may would have killed just as many people or less than the incremental strategy we went with going into Vietnam. Had we mobilized the conflict like we did for WW2 and launched an all-out war against North Vietnam, we would have destroyed the conventional forces in 18 months and followed that with a two-year counter-insurgency campaign. The protests really didn't break out until the Tet offensive. But an overwhelming victory in Vietnam would have put an end to the protests.

After the war, we would have invested billions in a reunified Vietnam, building modern infrastructure, modernizing Vietnamese agriculture and industry, and establishing a network of bases there. Vietnam would become another success story like Japan and Korea.

Bombing all of a nation with B-52s is not conductive to keeping civilian casualties low. Yes, an all-out war would have broken their conventional forces, but now you're stuck doing counter-insurgency for several years... sound familiar? An overwhelming victory complete with images of the massive civilian casualties that would result=protests. And where do you get these billions you're going to throw at the nation?

[The CINC]

The very first quagmire the US ever faced was not in Vietnam but in the Phillipines after the Spanish-American war. The SAW lasted six months and costed little in blood and treasure. But the subsequent guerilla war in the Philipines lasted two years and cost four times as much as the Spanish-American war. Regardless, we did put the insurrection down and held onto the Phillipines for 50 years. Honestly though, instead of granting the Philipines independence, we should have put the Philipines on the path to US Statehood.

After we defeated the conventional forces in Vietnam, we may had a bloody insurrection against the USA. But we would have quelled the insurrection. Eventually, we would have killed all the insurgents had we mobilized for Vietnam like we did for World War II.

[Dr. Cynic]

Yes; Wallace was a genius (an evil one), and could win the hearts and support of union voters and blue collar workers with his populist rhetoric.  But he would need to emphasize his support for unions, etc. to get votes outside the south.  If he wanted, he could run to the left of Dems on the economy and to the right of Nixon on social issues, and at least win the Old Confederacy.

I don't think Wallace was a genius at all. A genius wouldn't have picked LeMay. But actually, you make a great point. Wallace would have needed to outdistance Humphrey with blue collar workers in places like here in Pennsylvania where HHH was popular. Not an impossible feat. Two things conspired to beat him in doing so. First of all, Nixon's Southern Strategy cut his legs out from under him with voters who might have been sympathetic. The other was the unions loyalty to Humphrey, an ally they trusted rather than Wallace, whom I'm sure they figured was not trustworthy.

[Jerseyrules]

Yes; Wallace was a genius (an evil one), and could win the hearts and support of union voters and blue collar workers with his populist rhetoric.  But he would need to emphasize his support for unions, etc. to get votes outside the south.  If he wanted, he could run to the left of Dems on the economy and to the right of Nixon on social issues, and at least win the Old Confederacy.

I don't think Wallace was a genius at all. A genius wouldn't have picked LeMay. But actually, you make a great point. Wallace would have needed to outdistance Humphrey with blue collar workers in places like here in Pennsylvania where HHH was popular. Not an impossible feat. Two things conspired to beat him in doing so. First of all, Nixon's Southern Strategy cut his legs out from under him with voters who might have been sympathetic. The other was the unions loyalty to Humphrey, an ally they trusted rather than Wallace, whom I'm sure they figured was not trustworthy.

Not only this, but the fact that Wallace comes from Alabama, where, like the rest of the deep south, open shop was law.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe right-to-work laws in USA began in the deep south.  So while Wallace's personal record might not be in question, unions (at least the higher-ups in them) would hold their nose and go with Humphrey just because they didn't want someone from this anti-union region (who was also a racial bigot) carrying the banner of the worker's movement.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Hopefully not!  Wallace was pure evil, at least until the assassination attempt.  Lynyrd Skynyrd (which, as my usernane suggests I am a fan of), said it best about Wallace: "Boo, boo, boo!"

[CathKhan]

Hopefully not!  Wallace was pure evil, at least until the assassination attempt.  Lynyrd Skynyrd (which, as my usernane suggests I am a fan of), said it best about Wallace: "Boo, boo, boo!"

Didn't they also say "Now in Alabama, we love the Governor"?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Hopefully not!  Wallace was pure evil, at least until the assassination attempt.  Lynyrd Skynyrd (which, as my usernane suggests I am a fan of), said it best about Wallace: "Boo, boo, boo!"

Didn't they also say "Now in Alabama, we love the Governor"?

No, they said, "In Birmingham they love the Governor/Boo, boo, boo!/Now we all did what we could do."

[Fuzzy Bear]

One of the problems with the American Independent Party was that they weren't a party; they were a vehicle for Wallace and little more.  They did represent a different viewpoint from the major parties, however, and if they had fielded Congressional candidates in the South that were serious they may have had significant impact.

The biggest difference was NOT race; it was Wallace's super-hawkish viewpoint on the Vietnam War.  It was part of Wallace's appeal beyond the South; that, and a strong posture against the counterculture.  The 1968 Wallace campaign involved racists and Wallace had been an avowed segregationist (or at least taken that posture), but the 1968 Wallace campaign was not about segregation; it was about winning in Vietnam, ending crime and civil disorder domestically, and challenging the counterculture that many Middle Americans who were not necessarily conservatives or reactionaries were offended by.  This is not an endorsement of Wallace's campaign, but Wallace in 1968, unlike Thurmond in 1948, was truly a national campaign.

[blagohair.com]

If Wallace had won America would now be a third world country.