An American Monarchy: A Parliamentary America TL by DKrol

[DKrol]

An American Monarchy:
A Parliamentary America TL by DKrol

Introduction

America was in a bad place in the summer of 1965. What began as a neighborhood clash in Los Angeles over the drunk-driving arrest of an African American man quickly swept the nation as whites clashed with blacks in every community. Law and order disappeared and the powers of government quickly fell apart. President Lyndon Johnson, after making campaign promises of passing the late-President Kennedy’s Civil Rights Act, quickly lost his support for the bill due to, what he called, “the violence of the Afro-Americans when confronted by the law”. As the situation imploded and the White House came under fire from rioters, President Johnson resigned. He told Americans that “the situation, that of the American racial relations, has reached a point that I can no longer claim to be able to manage”.

Vice President Hubert Humphrey, 54 years old, was sworn in as President on August 28, 1965. He was determined to solve the race relations issue, telling one aid “It is necessary to the continuation of this country that the white and the black be able to live side-by-side”. Against the advice of the Secret Service, who had lost President Kennedy only two years earlier, President Humphrey set out on a speaking tour to visit the sites of major clashes and talk to the American people directly. Unfortunately for President Humphrey, the American people did not want to hear him. On September 12, 1965 a series of shots rang out while the President was speaking to a crowd in Jersey City, New Jersey. Two bullets fired from a M1911 and one fired from a Smith & Wesson Model 10 tore into the President’s chest. A pursuing investigation found that three African American World War II veterans, angered over the President’s failure to “provide for all of America’s veterans”, used their service pistols to gun down the President.

With President Humphrey having only been in office a few weeks, the Vice Presidency was vacant. At this point, the Speaker of the House, John William McCormack, ascended to the presidency. It was not an office McCormack had ever wanted, especially not in the fall of 1965 after months of rioting, looting, and violence. President McCormack attempted to go through Congress to achieve a peaceful solution, calling on his former co-workers to push through “meaningful Civil Rights legislation”. Many of the Congressmen and Senators, however, had adopted the same feelings that former President Johnson had: If African Americans won’t follow the law now, why should we legislate them into equality? After months of failed negotiations and continuing violence, President McCormack sadly declared “The American system of government has failed to respond to the needs of the American people. When a government reaches this state, it has gone on too long. That is why I’m recommending a Constitutional Convention be held to determine the best course of action for the future of this country. These actions are necessary if America is to have a future.”

By March, the requisite number of states had agreed with President McCormack and selected their delegates to the Constitutional Convention, which was decided to be held in Kansas City, Missouri. The delegates to the Convention were 65% white and 35% black, 95% man and 5% woman. Early on in the process, many delegates wanted to establish a one-chamber legislature, to make passing legislation easier, and to hold a new presidential election. Others felt that these actions were not sufficient to fix the issues. The idea to establish a constitutional monarchy, to allow for continuity in government and to create a symbol of nation unity, was first brought forward by Emmanuel Celler, a delegate from New York, and was eventually endorsed by Martin Luther King, Jr., a delegate from Alabama, once provisions for a unicameral parliament, an independent judiciary, full voting rights for African Americans, and a plebiscite for the monarchy were added.

The Convention then turned their attention to whom to select for the new royal family. Knowing that the King would only be a figure head, some delegates wanted to offer the throne to former President Harry Truman. Truman was passed over due to his advanced age, his connections to the old constitution, and his lack of a male heir. Henry Cabot Lodge, from Massachusetts, was also considered but also rejected because of his family’s deep ties to the old way. Eventually, businessman Nelson Rockefeller was selected by the Convention because he represented “an openness to a new stage in America’s history”, he had many male heirs, and he was considered "elite enough to be a royal", as one delegate put it. Speaker of the Convention Robert F. Kennedy, another delegate from New York, announced the Convention’s recommendation of a constitutional monarchy with a unicameral House of Commons, elected by the full adult population of the United States, and a judiciary with the power to remove the monarch from office.

A plebiscite was held on September 17, 1966 and a strong majority voted “yes” to the new constitution. Many expected the vote to pass easily, as it was endorsed by Robert Kennedy, President McCormack, Martin Luther King, Jr., and SNCC leader Julian Bond. The vote triggered the start of a transition the likes of which had not been seen by the world. Nelson Rockefeller was declared “King-in-Waiting” by the Congress and President McCormack became “Chief Executive” while provisions were made for the Rockefellers to move to Washington and other provisions were made for the shift to a Westminster-style government with 650 members, roughly one for every 305,000 citizens. Another national election was held on May 4, 1967 to send the first Members of Parliament to the newly-redesigned Capital, now called the Hall of Parliament.

The campaign for the first Parliament was short and based mostly on the personalities and histories of the leaders of the new political parties, as the Democratic Party and the Republican Party had been forced to disband in the Constitution of 1966. The Conservative Party, a center right party, was made up of the former Business Wing of the Republican Party and was led by Robert Taft, Jr. The Independent Democrats, a center left party, comprised many Northern Democrats and a few Liberal Republicans and was led by Mike Mansfield. The American Independence Party, a far right party, was made up of many former Southern Democrats and those Republicans who had opposed Civil Rights actions and was led by Strom Thurmond. The Labor Party, a far left party, was made up of pro-union former Democrats and was led by Richard Daley. Several regional parties were also formed but were too niche to have an impact on the national decision. After all the ballots had been counted, it was clear that no party would receive a majority but that the Independent Democrats and Mike Mansfield would be the largest party. In a show of unity, to help heal the nation after the fall of the 1787 Constitution, Robert Taft agreed to join in a coalition with the Independent Democrats.

The makeup of the first Parliament was 255 Independent Democrats, 231 Conservatives, 75 members of the AIP, 44 Laborites, 21 Socialists, 17 Greens, and 7 Independents. Mike Mansfield was chosen as the first Prime Minister, with Robert Taft as the first Deputy Prime Minister, and he received his commission to form a government on May 8, 1967 by King Nelson. The new America was born.

[Intell]

Someone shoot this king, or enact or socialist revolution to get rid of it pronto. The one thing that america had going for it was a republic, and expansion of sufferage (at least to white people)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I like this. Go on...

[NeverAgain]

I like this. Go on...

[DKrol]

First Mansfield Government, May 1967
Prime Minister: The Rt. Hon. Mike J. Mansfield (InDem.)
- Leader of the Independent Democrats
Deputy Prime Minister: The Rt. Hon. Robert A. Taft, Jr. (Cons.)
- Leader of the Conservative Party

Minister of Foreign Affairs: The Rt. Hon. Joseph J. Sisco (InDem.)
Minister of Finance: The Rt. Hon. Russel B. Long (InDem.)
Minister of Defense: The Rt. Hon. John G. Tower (Cons.)
Minister of Justice: The Rt. Hon. Homer Thornberry (InDem.)
Minister of Interior Affairs: The Rt. Hon. Floyd V. Hicks (InDem.)
Minister of Trade, Industry, and Business: The Rt. Hon. Robert A. Taft, Jr. (Cons.)
Minister of Labor and Employment: The Rt. Hon. C.R. Smith (InDem.)
Minister of Health and Social Affairs: The Rt. Hon. Stephen M. Young (InDem.)
Minister of Education: The Rt. Hon. Charles H. Percy (Cons.)
Minister of Agriculture and the Environment: The Rt. Hon. George S. McGovern (InDem.)
Minister of Transportation: The Rt. Hon. John A. Volpe (Cons.)
Minister of Infrastructure and Housing: The Rt. Hon. Roger D. Branigin (InDem.)
Minister of Veterans Affairs: The Rt. Hon. James M. Gavin (Cons.)
Minister of Native Affairs: The Rt. Hon. Fred R. Harris (InDem.)
Minister of Sports, Media, and Culture: The Rt. Hon. Peter S.E. Lawford (InDem.)

Minister without Portfolio: The Rt. Hon. Martin Luther King, Jr. (Ind.)

Leader of the Government in the House of Commons: The Rt. Hon. Earle C. Clements (InDem.)
Chief Government Whip in the House of Commons: The Rt. Hon. Edward M. Kennedy (InDem.)

The First Government of Mike Mansfield did not get off to an easy start. Although nice on paper, the Grand Coalition between the Independent Democrats and the Conservatives became strained quickly. Mansfield was focused on healing the racial tensions that had literally destroyed the government only a year earlier, while Taft was more concerned with rebuilding America’s image and strengthening the economy. Taft was especially worried about the fate of the United States in the United Nations, as Soviet and Chinese representatives were discussing the possibility of removing the United States from the Permanent Five of the Security Council. Although in government together, Taft often led his party against Mansfield on votes in the Commons. Most government-sponsored bills were able pass thanks to the support the Independent Democrats had from Laborites, Socialites, and Greens.

After passing many administrative bills, codifying the new Constitution and building up the government, the Commons then took up the issue the High Court. The High Court was to the 1966 Constitution what the Bill of Rights was to the 1787 Constitution; many voters staked their support for the Constitution on the checks-and-balances established by the High Court. The Constitution left the number of justices on the High Court up to the Parliament to decide, which quickly became a major fight. The Conservatives wanted a small, elite court, made up of 2 Justices and a Chief Justice. Laborites and Socialists fought for a larger court, with anywhere between 9 and 21 Justices, depending on which proposal was looked at. Ultimately, the Prime Minister proposed an 11-member High Court in the High Court Governance Act. Labor leader Richard Daley and Socialist leader Tucker P. Smith endorsed the 11-member Court, giving the Independent Democrats enough votes to push the plan through over strong Conservative opposition, who worried that creating too many Justices would “Unnecessarily expand the size of government and make it harder for the High Court to complete its duties”.

Then came the issue of who to place on the High Court. The Constitution gives that power to the Prime Minister on the advice of the Cabinet, without any need for confirmation from the Commons. With 12 Independent Democrats in the Government and only 5 Conservatives, Prime Minister Mansfield had no trouble getting his first choices through. Mansfield wanted to make a statement with his choices, placing several women and minorities on the High Court. On September 9, 1967, the Prime Minister announced the first 11 members of the High Court of the United States of America.

Chief Justice: Thurgood Marshall
First Justice: A. Leon Higgenbotham, Jr.
Second Justice: Earl Warren
Third Justice: Lorna E. Lockwood
Fourth Justice: Edward T. Gignoux
Fifth Justice: William H. Hastie
Sixth Justice: Shirley A.M. Hufstedler
Seventh Justice: Charles S. Desmond
Eighth Justice: John B. Swainson
Ninth Justice: Elsijane Trimble Roy
Tenth Justice: Roy Wilkins

[DKrol]

President Johnson was preparing for a massive military offensive in Vietnam when the civil unrest began. Although Congress had passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Johnson had had little time to act on the authorization before he was forced to turn his attention to the domestic crisis. Presidents Humphrey and McCormack were far too consumed by the collapsing government to pay any mind to the Nationalist-Communist fire that Johnson had stoked in Southeast Asia. With the government now stabilized, to some degree, the issue of Vietnam bubbled back to the surface.

Prime Minister Mansfield was firmly opposed to reengaging in the war, saying that he failed to see any “substantial American interest in the region”. Deputy Prime Minister Taft, like his famously isolationist father, called the Vietnam War “a quagmire we shall never escape from, should we even dip our toes in its murky waters”, although this position wasn’t supported by all Conservative MPs. Former General Curtis LeMay, now an AIP MP from California and Chief AIP Spokesman on Defense and Security, was the main voice calling for the United States to return to Vietnam under the new government. Speaking at a press conference with AIP leader Strom Thurmond, LeMay told reporters “Kennedy and Johnson made the decision to put our troops in Vietnam. I was over there; I saw the massive gains we were making before the revolution. We can win Vietnam but we have to act quickly, before the networks we spent years building fall apart”. LeMay found an ally in the battle to return to Vietnam in an unlikely place: Socialist leader Tucker Smith.

Smith and the normally anti-war Socialists wanted America to return to Vietnam, except on the other side. Smith and the Socialist Spokesmen put out a press release calling for America “to join our comrades in North Vietnam in the battle for the Great People’s Revolution”. With the combined 145 votes from AIP MPs, Socialists, a few Independents, and pro-intervention Conservatives and Independent Democrats, Thurmond and Smith were able to force the American Involvement in Vietnam Act to the floor of the Commons for debate.

The debate over the American Involvement in Vietnam Act has been regarded as one of the strangest hodge-podges of cross-bench support ever seen in a Parliamentary system. AIP MPs and Socialists stood side-by-side in support of passing the bill, which only called for America to re-deploy troops to the region and did not prescribe a specific goal or agenda, while Independent Democrats and Conservatives fought each other from the Government benches. At one point, Prime Minister Mansfield had to turn around and face the Government backbenchers to debate with Frank Church, a pro-interventionist Independent Democrat from Idaho. After four days of debate, the bill failed on the first vote, 498 to 153. LeMay pressured Thurmond to force a second vote but, after Thurmond met with Smith and other pro-intervention MPs, Thurmond told LeMay “The issue is dead. Communism will win in Vietnam”.

[DKrol]

On January 14, 1968, Bart Starr led the Green Bay Packers to a resounding 33 to 14 victory over the Oakland Raiders in the AFC-NFC World Championship game. This was Green Bay’s second straight victory in the Championship game, which drew a television audience of nearly 40 million on NBC. The game caught especially caught the attention of several MPs because of the unique ownership model of the Packers. For some Independent Democrats, Laborites, and Socialists, publically owned sports teamed looked like the modern example of nationalized economies.

Sports, Media, and Culture Minister Peter Lawford, an Independent Democrat from California, brought the idea of creating a publicly owned professional football team to the Prime Minister at a Cabinet meeting in the middle of February. Lawford’s original plan called for a single NFL-quality team to be formed, funded by American taxes, and compete in the National Football League. When Conservative Ministers questioned Lawford, he responded by saying “The interest in professional sports is immense. If we are to provide for the public good, a basic function of government, we must get involved in the field now.” Prime Minister Mansfield was unsure about the idea but scheduled a meeting with NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle to talk over the idea.

Pete Rozelle, the former General Manager of the Los Angeles Rams and a friend of Lawford, was receptive to the idea. Rozelle told Mansfield that, because of the high rate of folding with professional football teams, having a publicly owned team would “help establish the credibility of the National Football League as an institution”. Rozelle, however, expressed concerns about the ability of such a team to compete at a NFL level. He was specifically worried about the management ladder that would exist in that organization, saying “Where does the buck stop? Are we going to bother the Prime Minister with every roster decision?” Mansfield thanked Rozelle for his insight and went to the Cabinet with a new plan.

What came out of the Mansfield-Rozelle meeting became the Public Sports Act. The bill called for the creation of the American Football Development League, a professional football minor league with 20 teams. Each team would be overseen by a government-appointed “Executive Manager”, who would hire the team’s General Manager and Coaching staff, and the league would be overseen by a government-appointed Board, made up of 6 Directors and a President. All income from the league, through ticket sales, merchandise sales, and endorsement deals, would go into the government coffers after paying the player and staff salaries. In each budget the Commons passes, a line-item would be set aside to fund the AFDL. Finance Minister Russel Long assured the Cabinet that, based on the success of the NFL, the AFDL would “be paying for itself out of the gate, after a small investment by the Government”.

The Conservative members of the Cabinet were appalled by the idea for many of the same reasons the Independent Democrats supported it. If the NFL is doing so well, Education Minister Charles Percy argued, why do we need the government to step in and stimulate it? Deputy Prime Minister Robert Taft was initially open to considering the idea, if the league was reduced to 10 teams and private sponsorship of teams was allowed, but threats of a leadership challenge forced Taft to oppose the bill. The Conservatives were united in their opposition to the Public Sports Act, as were the AIP MPs, placing the bill’s fate in question. Combined, the Conservatives and AIP MPs fell just short of a majority. It was the debate over the Public Sports Act that brought that fact to the forefront.

The Grand Coalition had been fragile since its start, with Taft first suggesting the idea as a show of good faith in the 1966 Constitution. Other Conservative leaders hoped that having the two main parties together would moderate the more extreme elements of both sides. Many Conservatives, however, saw Mansfield turn to Laborites, Socialists, and Greens for advice and votes. The first calls to leave the Grand Coalition came during the fight over the High Court but Taft was able to quiet them. When the Public Sports Act came to the floor of the Commons, Taft was forced to give in. On April 12, 1968, after year and a half in a fragile coalition, Conservative Party leader Robert Taft announced that his party would be leaving the Government. He and Deputy Conservative leader Jerry Ford immediately scheduled meetings with AIP leader Strom Thurmond and AIP Deputy leader George Wallace to discussing forming a minority coalition government.

[Kingpoleon]

Amazing job! Keep writing!

[DKrol]

Glad so many people are liking this!

Any one have any questions, comments, or concerns so far?

[Intell]

Glad so many people are liking this!

Any one have any questions, comments, or concerns so far?

Surely there'd be a lot opposed to the monarchy.

[DKrol]

Glad so many people are liking this!

Any one have any questions, comments, or concerns so far?

Surely there'd be a lot opposed to the monarchy.

There's a fair amount. Most of the people who voted yes in the referendum did so as an expression of a desire for change, rather than a statement of support for the monarchy. Polling in late 1967 showed that about 47% of Americans were either opposed to the monarchy or have "serious reservations" about the monarchy.

[DKrol]

The alliance between the Conservatives and AIP MPs rebuilt the old Republican Party and brought in several former Southern Democrats. Media analysists called the new coalition “the definitive governing party” of the new nation. For Conservative leader Robert Taft, the new government meant having an actual say in the Commons. For AIP leader Strom Thurmond, the new government meant having a bigger pulpit. For Prime Minister Mike Mansfield, however, the alliance meant a big headache.

On April 15, Thurmond motioned for a vote of no confidence in the Commons. The motion was first seconded by Conservative Deputy leader Jerry Ford and then seconded again by independent MP Barry Goldwater. Speaker of the Commons Larry O’Brien, an independent in name but an Independent Democrat in practice, acted very slowly on the motion. He did not recognize the motion until April 18 and then scheduled the debate nearly a month after Thurmond made the original motion.

While O’Brien was stalling on the logistics of the motion of no confidence, Prime Minister Mansfield was scrambling to hold his government together. He and Taft met privately no less than six times in the month leading up to debate. Mansfield at first called the move a bluff on the part of the Conservatives, as an attempt to gain more influence in the cabinet. But when Taft held firm that he was serious about leaving the Government and join with Thurmond’s AIP, Mansfield crumbled. He offered everything to Taft to keep the Government together. An increase in the number of Cabinet Ministers, committee chairmanships, control over the Rules Committee. Mansfield offered to make Taft, in essence, Co-Prime Minister. Although Taft himself was receptive to Mansfield’s compromises, Conservative leadership, especially Conservative Party Chairman Richard Nixon, were adamant that the motion of no confidence must go through.

The final vote on the motion of no confidence was held on May 15, 1968, just over a year after the General Election that returned a hung parliament. The vote went largely as was expected, with Conservatives and AIP MPs voting No and Independent Democrats, Laborites, and Socialists voting Yes. The real surprise of the vote came from the Greens, who bucked Mansfield and voted No based on promises from Nixon that the next Conservative Manifesto would include several pro-Earth policies. The three independents who were Republicans under the 1787 Constitution also joined the No vote. Shortly after 1PM Speaker O’Brien called out the tally. 326 No to 324 Yes.

The victory of the Conservatives in the motion of no confidence set a series of events in motion. Although Conservative leader Robert Taft and AIP leader Strom Thurmond could have negotiated into a minority government, with the parliamentary support from the Greens, Conservative Central Office Chairman Thruston Morton advised otherwise. Morton, whose office oversaw all polling and electoral operations for the Conservatives, told Taft that, if a general election was called, the Conservatives would be the outright majority party in the Commons. Morton’s polling showed that voters viewed the Independent Democrats as weak, ineffective, and incapable of governing.

Heading Morton’s advice, Taft announced that he would be waiving his right to attempt and form a government, forcing an election. The second General Election under the 1967 Constitution was underway.

[beaver2.0]

Very interesting.

[DKrol]

Very interesting.

Thank you!

[DKrol]

While the Conservatives were rallying around Robert Taft and Jerry Ford, the Independent Democrats were dividing over Mike Mansfield. At their Party Conference, held in Baltimore in August of 1968, a group of Independent Democrat MPs led a leadership challenge against Mansfield, citing his “poor leadership of our party in Government”. Mansfield, already defeated in the Commons on the motion of no confidence, read the writing on the wall and announced he would not be contesting the leadership race. Mansfield ended up not even attending the conference, choosing to, instead, take a vacation with his family to South Carolina and participate in the conference over the telephone.

Three main candidates came forward for the leadership of the Independent Democrats. Pat Brown, MP from California and Deputy Minister for Health and Social Affairs, was the first to declare he would be seeking the leadership of the party. He cited his long service as Governor or California under the old Constitution as the main reason he should be leader, pointing to his “long record of elected leadership in a Republican state”. The next main candidate to emerge was John Connally, a more conservative MP from Texas. Connally positioned himself as “the strongest candidate to flip seats in AIP and Conservative territory”. The third candidate for leader was the one that drew the most media coverage.

Julian Bond was a major figure in the ratification of the 1967 Constitution as the leader of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. He had stood as an Independent Democrat candidate for a seat in Atlanta in 1967 but lost the seat to the AIP candidate. Although Bond lost, Mansfield appointed him to the Independent Party Executive Council and made him the Government’s number one spokesman on Civil Rights. He had filed to run as a candidate for the same seat in Atlanta for the 1968 election. When Bond announced he would be running for leader of the Independent Democrats, he gave a scathing speech against the white leadership, saying “This party was at the front of the battle of racial equality in 1966 and 1967. We won the election. And what have we done? The Mansfield Government failed to pass a single bill for the African Americans voters that put the Government in office. I will change that”.

The Independent Democrat Party Charter laid out very specific criteria for the election of a leader. Members of the Independent Democrat Party Executive Council receive five votes for leader, all Independent Democrat MPs are given two votes, and non-MP delegates to the party conference each got one vote. The Executive Council, made of the leaders of the 14 internal organs of the party, held 70 votes, the MPs, made of the 255 men and women elected in 1967, held 510 votes, and the 200 delegates, selected by local party councils, held 200 votes. The Charter was designed to give the majority of the power in selecting leaders to the establishment. In the 1968 leadership contest, Pat Brown was the preferred candidate of the establishment.

On the first round of voting, Connally came in first with 300 votes. Bond came in a surprise second, claiming 218 votes, followed closely by Brown, with 214. The remaining 48 were spread across a variety of candidates. Brown, although supportive of Civil Rights, was insulted by coming in behind an African American and withdrew from the contest after the first vote. Some in the party worried that Connally was too conservative to lead the Independent Democrats, the main center-left party in the nation. Others worried about the electability of a party led by an African American. The second vote showed a much closer race, with Connally sitting at 341 and Bond at 311, with 128 either not voting or supporting other candidates. Some in the party began to murmur about putting forward another candidate for the third ballot, but who to put forward drew a bigger fight behind the scenes than the fight between Connally and Bond.

The third ballot was the deciding vote. Shortly before voting was about to take place, Agriculture Minister George McGovern and New York MP Robert Kennedy endorsed Julian Bond for leader and pledged their support to campaigning for him in Atlanta. McGovern was the face of the future of the party and Kennedy represented the past, according to many media commentators. Their endorsements swung many votes to Bond, enough to secure the nomination. The third ballot broke down to 402 votes for Bond, 357 for Connally, 18 not voting, and 3 for other candidates.

Independent Democrat Party Chairman John M. Bailey announced Bond as the new leader of the Independent Democrats on August 10, 1968. As Bailey read off the final vote totals, John Connally staged a walk-out with his supporters, mainly Independent Democrats who were moderate on Civil Rights issues. Of the 780 delegates credentialed to vote at the party conference, Connally walked out with 210 as Bond took the stage to give his victory speech. The next day, Connally announced he was resigning as an Independent Democrat MP and would stand for election in his San Antonio district as a member of the American Independence Party. His supporters were split in their defections between the AIP and the Conservatives.

[DKrol]

The 1968 General Election was the first one covered extensively by television. The 1967 Election was too short for television networks to shift their coverage-styles to the new system and reporting still relied heavily on newspapers. For 1968, all three of the networks devoted large amount of resources into following the party leaders, presenting major party rallies, and providing extensive punditry. The 1968 Independent Democrat Party Conference was the second highest-rated program on CBS, following the NFC-AFC World Championship game.

Most polls taken before the election of Julian Bond as leader of the Independent Democrats confirmed the internal Conservative Party polls. A NBC poll taken on July 21 showed Conservatives with 33%, Independent Democrats with 24%, American Independence Party with 20%, Socialists with 11%, Labor with 9%, and other local parties with 3%. Bond’s election massively shook up the electoral landscape. The first poll taken after Bond’s election, conducted by the Wall Street Journal, was widely discredited by the commentator class because of its massive swing for AIP.

The Wall Street Journal found the Conservatives leading with 28%, AIP in a close second with 27%, Independent Democrats sat at 19%, Socialists at 10%, and Labor was tied with other at 8%. A CBS poll also found an uptick in support for AIP, but not to the extent that the WSJ poll did and continued to show the Independent Democrats as the second party. Bond himself dismissed the WSJ poll as “a poll conducted by racists, of racists”. Conservative leader Taft was overjoyed by the rise in AIP, assuming that any increase in AIP MPs would lend the Conservatives a stronger ally in the Commons. AIP leader Strom Thurmond felt a groundswell in support, leading him to think the polls were understating how much AIP was rising, and began to reallocate resources to districts where AIP candidates had run second and third a few weeks before the election.

Thurmond’s AIP was focused on continuing its course of ardent conservativism, hitting on “preserving classic American values” and limiting government spending. Taft and the Conservatives tipped slightly to the center, making good on Party Chairman Richard Nixon’s promise to Greens leader Gaylord Nelson to include several pro-Earth policies in the Conservative Manifesto. The Conservative Manifesto called for the passing of clean air, clean water, and anti-pollution measures. Nelson announced an electoral alliance with the Conservatives, pledging to “work towards our common goals”. The Julian Bond-led Independent Democrats embraced Civil Rights and their manifesto called for several new policies, the most radical of which required that no less than 3 members of any Government Cabinet be African Americans and that the Chief Judge of the High Court always be an African American. The Independent Democrats focused most of their resources on the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states, the Conservatives piled their resources in the Mid-West and the West, AIP spread their resources across the South, the Mid-Atlantic, and the West, while Labor put most of their efforts into the Greater Chicago and Greater New York City areas, and the Socialists and Greens fought for seats in California, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

The CBS News Exit Poll on October 3 showed a Conservative majority, with AIP rising to second party status, Independent Democrats slipping to third, Labor holding in fourth, followed by the Greens, Socialists, and independents. Over the course of election night, however, a different picture was painted. In district after district the CBS Exit Poll had to be corrected and the projection recalculated. Shortly after midnight, CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite declared “The boys in the back clearly got this one wrong”.

[DKrol]

After all the votes were counted, Strom Thurmond was the one receiving the commission to form a government. The final votes gave the AIP 342 seats, a 17 seat majority, the Conservatives came in second with 212, Labor in third with 41, Independent Democrats in fourth with 39, Greens in fifth with 9, Socialists in sixth with 4, and independents or other parties won 3 seats. The main party leaders, Robert Taft, Strom Thurmond, Julian Bond, Richard Daley, Tucker Smith, and Gaylord Nelson, all won their districts. Thurmond won his by the largest margin and Nelson’s win was the narrowest.

The 1968 General Election was a major blow to the Independent Democrats, who were once viewed by some commentators as the “new face” of America. H.R. Haldeman, a major Conservative donor and political commentator, told NBC’s Chet Huntley “This election only cements what the conservative parties have been saying for months – the Independent Democrats are a group of dangerous radicals. Now, we have proof that the American people agree”. Later polls and surveys found that people agreed with Haldeman’s assessment; many Americans viewed the Independent Democrats as a party more supportive of pan-Africanism and black nationalism rather than unity and economic progress for all Americans.

Thurmond offered several cabinet posts to Conservative MPs that he felt were “friendly to the AIP cause”. Thurmond’s original plan for his government had the Labor and Employment, Transportation, and Sports, Media, and Culture Ministries going to Conservative MPs. Ronald W. Reagan, a newly-elected MP from California, was Thurmond’s first choice for Sports, Media, and Culture and he hoped to keep John A. Volpe in office at Transportation. The “friendly” MPs were receptive to serving in an AIP Government but Conservative leader Robert Taft issued a declaration to all Conservative MPs banning them from serving in any ministerial positions “without the explicit consent of the leader”. The de facto ban on accepting cabinet posts was Taft’s way of ensuring his party did not simply become the business wing of the AIP.

Thurmond and Deputy AIP leader George Wallace announced the first AIP government on October 6. The State Opening of Parliament and the King’s Speech took place on October 10. In the King’s Speech, the Government laid out a very conservative agenda that cut the budget in several places, increased the requirements to receive government assistance, and reversed the pervious Government’s non-interventionist policy in Vietnam.

First Thurmond Government, October 1968
Prime Minister: The Rt. Hon. J. Strom Thurmond (AIP)
- Leader of the American Independence Party
Deputy Prime Minister: The Rt. Hon. George C. Wallace (AIP)
- Deputy Leader of the American Independence Party

Minister of Foreign Affairs: The Rt. Hon. J. William Fulbright (AIP)
Minister of Finance: The Rt. Hon. John B. Connally, Jr. (AIP)
Minister of Defense: The Rt. Hon. Curtis E. LeMay (AIP)
Minister of Justice: The Rt. Hon. James O. Eastland (AIP)
Minister of Interior Affairs: The Rt. Hon. John Ben Shepperd (AIP)
Minister of Trade, Industry, and Business: The Rt. Hon. George C. Wallace (AIP)
Minister of Labor and Employment: The Rt. Hon. Carl T. Hayden (AIP)
Minister of Health and Social Affairs: The Rt. Hon. Orval E. Faubus (AIP)
Minister of Education: The Rt. Hon. John J. Sparkman (AIP)
Minister of Agriculture and the Environment: The Rt. Hon. Barry Goldwater (AIP)
Minister of Transportation: The Rt. Hon. Richard B. Russell, Jr.
Minister of Infrastructure and Housing: The Rt. Hon. Lester G. Maddox, Sr. (AIP)
Minister of Veterans Affairs: The Rt. Hon. John C. Stennis (AIP.)
Minister of Native Affairs: The Rt. Hon. Paul J. Fannin (AIP)
Minister of Sports, Media, and Culture: The Rt. Hon. Spessard L. Holland (AIP)

Minister without Portfolio: The Rt. Hon. Harlan D. Sanders (AIP)

Leader of the Government in the House of Commons: The Rt. Hon. George C. Wallace
Chief Government Whip in the House of Commons: The Rt. Hon. John S. Wold

[beaver2.0]

An AIP-run government!

[Kingpoleon]

Even in this world centrism is dead.

Oh well. Connally strikes me as a mainstream conservative, so hopefully he becomes leader soon. Also, go King Nelson!

[DKrol]

Even in this world centrism is dead.

Oh well. Connally strikes me as a mainstream conservative, so hopefully he becomes leader soon. Also, go King Nelson!

The Hand Picked Successor (George Wallace) v. the Up-Start Challenger (John Connally)? Hmmmm..., certainly an interesting idea.

Glad so many people are liking this. As always, if you have any questions please feel free to ask, if you have any comments, please feel free to leave them.

[Oak Hills]

What did the national popular vote totals for the '68 election look like?

[DKrol]

What did the national popular vote totals for the '68 election look like?

American Independence Party - 23,544,867
Conservative Party - 20,232,167
Labor Party - 18,910,767
Independent Democrat Party - 18,910,444
Green Party - 2,569,745
Socialist Party - 2,333,246
Other - 2,001,113

TOTAL VOTES CAST: 88,502,349

Turnout is higher in this TL for two main factors. First, many of the barriers for African American voters in cities throughout the South were lifted under the short-lived Liberal Democrat government, boosting numbers in places in Birmingham, Alabama, Atlanta, Georgia, Columbia, Columbus, Georgia, South Carolina, and Jackson, Mississippi. Note that many barriers still block African Americans from voting in the rural South. Second, the government of the 1967 Constitution is still new and exciting, driving more people to participate than in the RL 1968 election.

[DKrol]

Curtis LeMay, a retired Air Force General, was known for his outspokenness. During the Vietnam debate of 1967, LeMay was the main voice calling for America to return to active combat in Southeast Asia. Many viewed the selection of LeMay for Defense Minister as a confirmation that the Thurmond Government would be pursuing a very aggressive foreign policy, which many in the media compared to that of former President Lyndon Johnson. While the King’s Speech only called for a “change” in American policy towards Vietnam and the fight against Communism, media commentators and other MPs read “change” as “reversal”. They were not wrong.

Prime Minister Thurmond held his first Cabinet meeting on October 12 and the issue of Vietnam was the first topic discussed. With a section of the AIP Manifesto calling for “a new phase of the battle against Communism, especially Soviet Communism in Viet Nam”, the party-line position on the issue was well known. The only debate among the Cabinet Ministers was to what extent the battle should be waged, and where. After all American troops were withdrawn in the winter of 1966, the North Vietnamese Army had surged all the way to Saigon, where nationalist forces were able to fortify a small area around the American embassy as the last remnants of South Vietnam under President Nguyen Van Thieu.

LeMay, the biggest hawk of the Government, advocated for an immediate return to the troop levels that President Johnson had been preparing for. LeMay proposed “an American blitzkrieg” to “shock the pants off” the Vietnamese. Under LeMay’s proposal more than 4,000 Marines would be deployed to Saigon to secure a landing area for later deployments while about 150 aircraft began to bombard the Vietnamese countryside. An armored battalion would be airdropped near Hanoi and smash into the capital, scattering leaders and crushing morale. LeMay’s plan did not include an end-game but did leave the door open to the use of nuclear weapons should “standard operations fail to achieve success”.

Not all Cabinet Minister were on board with how aggressive LeMay’s strategy was. Veteran’s Minister John Stennis was the strongest voice of dissent to LeMay’s strategy. Stennis, always fiscally minded, worried about the future costs of such an aggressive combat mission. Stennis specifically noted that “LeMay’s lack of a clear exit strategy will increase the costs of returning to combat exponentially”. Joining Stennis in the dove corner of the Government was Minister without Portfolio Colonel Harlan Sanders and Native Affairs Minister Paul Fannin.

Thurmond took LeMay’s proposal and codified it into the Vietnam Act of 1968. The bill declared war on the “Communist rebels of Viet Nam” and authorized the Prime Minister to “take any and all actions deemed necessary to protect the interests of the American people” in Southeast Asia. The debate over the bill was sharply split over ideological lines. AIP MPs supported the bill, joined by a few defecting Conservatives, while most Conservatives, Laborites, Independent Democrats, Socialists, and Greens opposed it. Independent Democrat leader Julian Bond called the bill “another distraction from the real issues affecting Americans”. Leader of the Opposition Robert Taft issued a party whip directing Conservatives to oppose the bill “on the grounds that there is no substantial American interest in the region”, but Deputy leader Jerry Ford allowed some MPs to defect “to keep the peace” in the party.

The vote on the Vietnam Act was held on November 1. The final vote was 370 Aye to 280 No. Royal Assent was granted the following day, on November 2. America was going back to Vietnam, with a different Commander at the helm and a more aggressive General in the co-pilot’s seat.

[DKrol]

While Parliament was debating the Vietnam Act, Americans were focusing on more spiritual matters. During the Constitutional Crisis, as historians began to call the events of 1966 and 1967, teenagers and young adults became extremely dissatisfied and disinterested with the government and authority, in more general terms. Young people across the country turned to men like Timothy Leary and his message of “Turn on, tune in, and drop out”. Especially in San Francisco’s Haight-Ashbury neighborhood, more and more young adults were taking up communal living, psychedelic drugs, and alternative music. When it was announced that America would be returning young men to Vietnam in heavy combat situations, this trend only increased.

As Defense Minister LeMay and General William Calley were orchestrating one of the most extensive military operations in American history, Charles Manson was orchestrating one of the most gruesome crime families in American history. Built around his messiah mentality, Manson charmed young men and women into his family and controlled all aspects of their lives. In late July, Manson set his family into action. Several “family members” broke into the home of filmmaker Roman Polanski and murdered five people there before killing two influential California businesspeople only hours later. When the media reported the story of the Manson Family murders, many authority figures viewed the tale as an anecdote for the horrible effects of psychedelic drugs and the counter-culture movement.

During the growth of the counter-culture movement, music festivals became massively popular. They brought together like minded people to enjoy music, companionship, and experimental drugs. The largest ever music festival was scheduled for early August, 1969, in upstate New York. When news of the Manson Family killings spread, non-hippies feared such a large gathering of counter-culture youth. Thomas Dewey, the Conservative Premier of New York who had been in office since 1943, received hundreds of phone calls and letters from concerned residents of the Catskill region who feared the effect of having so many “radical hippies” come together in an otherwise quiet area.

Dewey also had his doubts about such a large gathering, as more than 400,000 people were expected to take up residence at the Woodstock Festival, and the effects it would have on “normal living conditions in the area”. After speaking to New York State Police Superintendent John Baron and New York State National Guard Commandant Donald Miller, Premier Dewey decided to allow the event to take place, although state police and National Guard units would be on stand-by at a nearby farm.

The first day of the Festival, August 14, went off without a hitch. Heavy rains dampened the spirits of many attendees, keeping the revelry to a minimum. The second day, however, took a turn for the worst. Shortly after Santana began performing at 2:00PM, a pair of festivalgoers began to “trip out” and stormed the police outpost on the edge of the festival. Although only two men attacked the police, Superintendent Barron did not take any risks and ordered the State Police and National Guard to storm the Festival and arrest anyone using, possessing, or “who may have knowledge of” illegal materials.

Santana front man Carlos Santana shouted “F--- man! It’s the cops!” in the middle of their hit song Evil Ways as he saw the wave of police officers and soldiers surge over the hillside from the stage. Santana’s warning spooked many festivalgoers, many of whom were drunk, high, sleep deprived, or some combination of the three, who panicked. The ensuing confusion ended in a high amount of violence, with three police officers, a National Guardsman, and sixteen festivalgoers dying. Hundreds more were severely injured and almost anyone in the area received a few bruises.

The images of state police officers, dressed in military-level armor, beating harmless-looking hippies and festivalgoers were quickly published in newspapers across the country and shown on all three evening news programs. Public opinion was split over what the media began to call “The Woodstock Massacre”; some viewed it as a strong sign that law and order was being upheld, others viewed it as a reckless abuse of power by the government. When Independent Democrat leader Julian Bond called out the Woodstock Massacre as “the first action of this authoritarian regime” during Prime Minister’s Questions on August 19, Prime Minister Strom Thurmond was furious, shouting “If they followed the law, no one would have gotten hurt. Because of a bunch of drugged-up hippies, I have to bury four of this nation’s finest men” as tears filled his eyes.

This exchange was replayed on television many times over the next week, with the showing of emotion by Thurmond driving up his favorability numbers and winning more support for the actions Barron and Miller took. When footage of the Manson Family trial was played with pictures of festivalgoers throwing bottles and rocks at police officers at Woodstock, support for Thurmond, Barron, and Miller went even higher. People were scared, and Thurmond knew how to play that game.

[LLR]

My lord, that's awful