If it wasn't for Vietnam, would we be a leftist society today?

[King]

(1) Vietnam ruined LBJ's domestic agenda
(2) Protests of the war led to the invention of "hippies"--giving liberalism some bad PR (every liberal is labeled a hippy for the next 40 years
(3) No Vietnam = Great Society expanded + LBJ re-election in 68
(4) No Nixon comeback = no Watergate = no national distrust in government
(5) No Watergate = no sad sap Jimmy Carter Presidency
(6) No Carter = No opening for a Reagan presidency
(7) No sound conservative movement in the United States

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

LBJ used Vietnam as cover to distract from his destructive domestic agenda.

[Mechaman]

Not sure.

There is too much of a Butterfly effect to be for sure.  Hell, if there "wasn't for Vietnam" we could be anything from an authoritarian monarchy regime to a fabian inspired socialist state (though according to some we already are apparently).

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

Perhaps the left would have staved out a longer than they did OTL, but eventually conservative resurgence would have taken place. No society permanently stays left (or right for that matter), and eventually, we'd shift over to the right. Maybe, just maybe, by the butterfly effect we would be more of a right-wing society than we are now.

[Derek]

We aren't a leftist society.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

No. Actually America would be alot more conservative if anything.

[Franzl]

We aren't a leftist society.

Learn to read.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

There would probably still be some sort of conservative movement, but the backlash against liberalism would not have occurred.  Also, the New Left would not have emerged, and we'd be much better off for it.  Men like Hubert Humphrey and Scoop Jackson would have led the Democratic Party, rather than McGovern and Carter, and that would certainly be for the better.

[Derek]

We aren't a leftist society.

Learn to read.

It sounds like it's implying that we are leftist.  I see no correlation between us moving to the left without Vietnam but it's amazing what drugs can do to people so it's hard to say.

[King]

We aren't a leftist society.

Learn to read.

It sounds like it's implying that we are leftist.  I see no correlation between us moving to the left without Vietnam but it's amazing what drugs can do to people so it's hard to say.

Learn to read.

[Derek]

We aren't a leftist society.

Learn to read.

It sounds like it's implying that we are leftist.  I see no correlation between us moving to the left without Vietnam but it's amazing what drugs can do to people so it's hard to say.

Learn to read.

What crawled up your ass?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

There would probably still be some sort of conservative movement, but the backlash against liberalism would not have occurred.  Also, the New Left would not have emerged, and we'd be much better off for it.  Men like Hubert Humphrey and Scoop Jackson would have led the Democratic Party, rather than McGovern and Carter, and that would certainly be for the better.

So the Democratic party would be anti-abortion today?

[opebo]

Oh, I do think we might be slightly left of our current sad condition.

But just imagine how much better off Vietnam and other countries in the region would be!  Cambodia anyway.  Thailand I'm not so sure, they mostly just benefited from the waste.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

no, there has always been a desire to contain liberalism once perceived to have over extended itself like in 1938, 1946 and 1952 were both desires to take a breather. And eventually people would have grown tired of big gov't again. There still would have been the Evengelical movement and the social problems that motivate social conservatives to this day.  As for limiting the size of gov't, and cutting taxes, that would depend on how far the left succeeded in getting their adjenda enacted as to how strong and how long the anti-gov't reaction would be.

[Bo]

Probably not, but it's hard to tell due to the various factors. If not for Vietnam, we might have gone into another unsuccessful war that would have had the same effect and impact on society as Vietnam did in RL.

(1) Vietnam ruined LBJ's domestic agenda
(2) Protests of the war led to the invention of "hippies"--giving liberalism some bad PR (every liberal is labeled a hippy for the next 40 years
(3) No Vietnam = Great Society expanded + LBJ re-election in 68
(4) No Nixon comeback = no Watergate = no national distrust in government
(5) No Watergate = no sad sap Jimmy Carter Presidency
(6) No Carter = No opening for a Reagan presidency
(7) No sound conservative movement in the United States

1. LBJ still got a lot of it passed anyway.
2. Possibly, but I think the negative PR liberals got over the last 40 years had a lot of other causes as well.
3. Possibly
4. Possibly
5. There might have still been another incompetent President either at that time or further down the road, even without Watergate.
6. There were many prominent conservatives in the GOP in the 1970s and 1980s. Another incompetent Democratic Presidency or a poor Democratic campaign could have given them control of the Presidency anyway.
7. No. There were many prominent conservatives in politics even before Vietnam, and even without the war, other issues would have emerged that would have energized conservatives to a great extent, such as abortion, gay rights, affirmative action, gun rights, and taxes.

[Derek]

I think that the hippy movement would've happened but IN THE NAME OF what the left refers to as economic equality. I define that as everyone has an equal opportunity to make as much as they can without government interference. They would also bring up "moral responsibility" as if we are all one with no individualism. It would have happened one way or another.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, I think it played a great part in the birth of the conservative movement. But well, you can't do history with "ifs". It's probable, but you never know what else could have happened.

[Jensen]

Derek is right. The title is easy to misread.

He read it as if you were asking if we would be the leftist society we are today without Vietnam.

[King]

Derek is right. The title is easy to misread.

He read it as if you were asking if we would be the leftist society we are today without Vietnam.

Well, we're obviously not a leftist society today so I still don't see how anybody could assume that is what I meant.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It was perfectly understandable.

[Derek]

Vietnam has been the left's punching bag for 40 years. Eeew it's another Vietnam. Geez so much trauma. They could look back to the Pelopponesian Wars and say it's just like Vietnam. They politicized that to advance a left-wing agenda and it worked so they're not stopping with that war.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

It's not really easy to tell, as hundreds of possibilities would be in play if Vietnam didn't happen. 

If I had to guess, no New-Left/Middle Way movement, and the Parties aren't as polarized as they are today.

[memphis]

Absolutely not. Vietnam had nothing to do with the demise of American liberalism. If anything, it was the one issue on which the general consensus moved toward liberal position.

[War on Want]

No. Actually America would be alot more conservative if anything.

Yep, at least on cultural issues. We would also be much more jingoist.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

No. The Vietnam War was the iconic issue which mobilized the cultural left to take over the Democratic Party.