American History

Events facilitated by both the emergence of civil rights movements and the assassination of U.S president J. Kennedy were key elements in shattering the liberal consensus in the 1960s.  Liberal ideologies that had been well-established from the 1950s in USA came to a fall in 1968 with the upcoming of civil rights movements in the early 1960s (Alexander  Charles, 1992). This intact phenomenon was glued together solidly by the Americas economic success. Liberalism advocated for eradication of poverty by empowering the minority through education. It held a school of thought that its only through education that people would compete equally in the job market. The notion that the Civil Rights Act (1964) vis--vis education would resolve the ills of discrimination did not hold (Weisbrot, 1990). It is proper adoption and application of theories such as Keynesians economics that had guaranteed economic success. This constant growth of economy fuelled the liberal consensus belief that economic problems as well as civil rights will be resolved. However, questions have been raised about how such fundamental ideologies were shattered and by what.

Factors attributed to the fall of liberal consensus are for instance Vietnam War, diminishing economy and the upsurge within the civil rights movements (Alexander  Charles, 1992). The Vietnam Wars impact on economy is an example of triggers for activism by civil rights movement. The Civil Rights and Black movements in the 1960s were led by intelligent and visionary leaders. Iconic figures such as Martin Luther King and Malcolm X led these movements. Forms of organizations in the early 1960s to press for liberation and included the Nation of Islam, Student Nonviolent Coordinating committee (SNCC), Revolutionary Action Movement (RAM), Organization of American Unity (OAAU), Black Panther Party, and Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) (Weisbrot, 1990).

These movements organized conferences, held rallies, and made publications to express oppression on American people and in particular the black minority. For instance, SDS organized the long march on 17th April 1965 protesting the Vietnam War (Bloom, 1987). The movement also pressed for economic freedom and a paradigm shift from capitalist economy. However, this was not to last until its fall in late 1960s. Students for a Democratic Society gained its influence and massive support from the disorderly social systems which promoted oppression of the racial minorities. RAM which was formed in 1963 by black college students advocated for a Marxist revolution in a military-styled campaign. Its activities did not last for long until 1967 when its leadership was combated with law enforcement agencies (Alexander  Charles, 1992). In 1966, activists in California formed Black Panthers after being frustrated by persistent oppression and inspired by philosophies of Malcolm X. They pressed for equality for all, end of Vietnam War, and better education services.The Montgomery Bus Boycott in 19551966 and subsequent recognition of Rosa parks as Mother of the Modern day Civil Rights Movement and the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Topeka landmark ruling also formed the base for revolutionary change (Weisbrot, 1990).

Although these civil rights movements continued their revolution crusade, they were drastically affected by the killing their leaders. Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965 whereas Martin Luther King jr. was assassinated in 1968. However with their continued activism, major achievements for instance government recognition and the enactment of Civil Rights Act- were recorded (Bloom, 1987). This became a wake-up call to the liberalists government that a paradigm shift was a necessity. Its thus undisputable that human rights movements have were paramount in changing the face of events and the status quo in various aspects of liberalism in the 1960s. The rights movement has thus been paramount in the democratization process in U.S both at international and internal relations. Time and again, rights movements were regarded as a threat to the established social order. Failure to understand the right movements contradictions imposed potential delay in shattering liberalism. Today, accolades are given to Martin Luthers dream even though many liberals such J. Edgar fear the capacity of rights movements to brew dissatisfaction within America (Weisbrot, 1990).
Following the death of U.S president, John F. Kennedy, much changed regarding the issue of liberalism as furthered by the president. According to Pierson, progressive liberalism was at stake in 1968 despite narratives regarding Americas liberalism weakness and optimism that it could be successfully perfected.

There was speculation that Kennedys assassin was an affiliate to the radical right and hence liberals could not believe it that Lee Harvey was in fact a communist (Hillman, 1967). Most leaders argued that Kennedy was a casualty while others saw his death as a result f the Americans anger and hatred. The basics of liberalism changed since 1963 up to 1968 with Kennedys death taking a pivotal role in this change. Its worth noting that in the decade preceding the 1960s, liberalism had been future oriented and progressive. By 1968, liberalism had changed significantly with the liberals now claiming that Americas prosperity was founded on despoiling the environment and materialism (Weisbrot, 1990). The liberals labeled America as dictators signifying a change in discourse and indicating an end to the American liberalism. In the 1950s, there lacked consensus on what liberalism meant but this trend changed in the years after 1963 in that it was transforming from a new deals programmatic liberalism to a liberalism based on ideas. In defense of this change, the liberals termed the changes as an evolution based on a new liberal tradition. Following the assassination of Kennedy, there was movement of people to South West from North East region. Cultural issues emanating from the assassination of Kennedy also factored in the course of liberalism change. Initially, liberalism was based on the American exceptionalism but all this belief changed following Kennedys death with liberals taking an adversarial stand against U.S and this has continued for years. As Pierson notes, the change in liberalism signaled an increasingly high instantiation with regard to the American experience (cited in Hilsman 1967). According to Hilsman, liberalism became deeply divided in the aftermath of Kennedys assassination and was highly characterized by revolution and irrationalism. Being incapable of coming to an agreement regarding Kennedys assassination, the liberals established the ideology of a martyred president who died for a country that was not worthy such fate. By failing to consider Kennedy as a democrat assassinated by a communist, the liberals set the stage for the destruction of liberalsim.      

Americas Involvement in Vietnam
The Vietnam War was one of the worst consequence resulting from U.S intervention and control over the affairs of other countries in a bid to further its interests. Being one of the longest wars in U.S history, the Vietnam War was fought for about ten years beginning 1965 and lasting up to 1975. According to Kahin (1986), the Vietnam was the most unpopular war to have ever been fought by America in the twentieth century. The war resulted into the death of close to 60,000 Americans and 2 million deaths of Vietnamese people. Many people though were skeptical of the role of U.S in the Vietnam War describing it as the worst blunder and or sin while others saw it as having been a noble cause or an idealistic effort by U.S to protect South Vietnam from the totalitarian French government (Arthur, 1966). Following the Second World War, Ho Chi Minh of Vietnam was very instrumental in helping the American pilots who had been downed during the war and was also involved in gathering intelligent information for America regarding Japan. It is trough this involvement that Vietnam established ties with U.S and thus made their goal of an independent Vietnam known to U.S. Indochina the area covering Vietnam was a major concern during and after the Second World War (Rotter, 1987). This concern attracted the support of Stalin, America and Chiang in advocating for the conversion of Indochina to a trusteeship hence establish its independence rather than  remaining as a French colony.  

Later, even with the influence of FDR in place, America offered French support in maintaining Indochina as a French colony despite the resistance of the Vietnamese people. The colony status led to an even stringent French rule over Vietnam resulting into the death of millions of Vietnamese people. Despite repeated calls by Vietnamese leaders such as Ho Chi Minh in the 1940s to American officials including President Truman to help them stop Frenchs rule, U.S ignored the plight of Vietnamese people (Kahin, 1986). Following U.S and French negligence, Vietnam sought help from the communists to fight for its independence thus prompting U.S to take a non-involvement approach to the French-Vietnam conflict. Dissatisfied with the Vietnams involvement with the communists, America became more withdrawn from the issue of assisting Vietnam even though American experts could not prove this affiliation.

Following the differences in opinion existing between the states revolving around the affairs of Vietnam, there escalated conflict between the Western United States and South East Asia powers .This is because the U.S was opposed to communism as it held the notion that communists lacked the capacity to govern themselves and also could not manage important regions and resources (Rotter, 1987).  Following intensified conflict between Vietnam and French, the French withdrew their control over Vietnam and thus transferred power to Vietnamese Bao Dai who was not recognized by the Vietnam people. Though recognized by U.S, Bao was on the contrary not recognized by the Vietnamese as their leader as he served the goals of French and U.S. At the time Vietnam was being divided into South and North, America had been into enough dealing with Bao and French who by now were losing considerably in terms of their hold of the region. The U.S thus bet their support for Ngo Dinh Diem following the believe that it would be easier to work through Ngo Dinh rather than Bao as Dinh seemed to be more submissive to the plans of U.S. having lived in U.S all along the time of the war between Indochina and French, Ngo Dinh became the first president of the southern Vietnam after being democratically elected under U.S intervention (Arthur, 1966). America had immense influence on the elections as both candidates for Sothern Vietnam presidency Ngo Dinh and Bao Dai were U.Ss favorites. Ngos election was as a result of much coercion by U.S dictating to the Vietnamese people on who was to be voted. U.S even went to an extent of beating the Vietnamese who were opposed their proponent. U.S supported the CIA Vietnamese forces which were very instrumental in Ngos unfair election (Rotter, 1987).

Following a 98.2  victory, U.S advisors had counseled Ngo to declare at least 70 victory to make it seem real of which he refused. These initial experiences that Vietnam had with the Western democracy soured their relation with U.S leading to deep rooted distrust on American systems and involvement into the affairs of Vietnam. In 1956, U.S interfered with the national election called through the peace accord after noting that Ho chi would likely emerge victor in the open elections (Arthur, 1966).

In the term during which Ngo ruled, American troops offered enormous support to protect him from any attempts to seize him from power. For instance, both the Americas military and CIA were very instrumental during President Kennedys rule in countering any opposition force in Vietnam. In the name of  foreign aid, U.S provided financial support to Ngo Dinh to help him set up a militant government system that would effectively handle opposition and enhance the enforcement of laws which he passed in favor of U.S. these laws impoverished Vietnams and denied them the freedom to worship. This was a strategic move by the U.S to indirectly suppress Vietnamese communists while trying to unite Northern and Southern Vietnam. In the year 1963, America supported Vietnamese forces which assaulted demonstrators from Southern Vietnam advocating for freedom to worship. America by all means tried to sum up all support possible for Diem (Ngo Dinh). Pierson notes that,

Of particular propaganda value to Diem was the exodus of almost 1 million Catholics from north to south who were said to have voted with their feet for freedom. Encouraged by the Catholic hierarchy and organized by Lansdale and his team, entire parishes were carried south in American ships following priests who told them Christ had moved south, as well as making promises of land and livelihood. The usefulness of this refugee population did not end with their much-photographed arrival in the South. In effect they were an imported political resource for Diem, a substantial and dependent bloc of loyal supporters (Rotter, 1987).            
Despite the existence f the Geneva accord, Lansdale continued to intimidate the Vietnamese people by reporting of a new U.S supported war hence more people moved southwards and in the process strengthening his supporters bloc even more.

In the long last, President Kennedys administration realized that Diem was not the best leader to rely on to further their interests in Vietnam. Kennedy thus proposed a military coup against Diem through the CIA. In 1963, the U.S supported CIA gave about 40,000 to finance Diems destruction. America had thus successfully supported and brought down a monster. It is in 1965 that America got involved in the Vietnam War officially supporting minor interests of the Vietnamese through which the U.S would also benefit. U.S intervention would be very paramount to Diem in fighting the Southern Communist-based guerillas Viet Cong who were a great threat to Diems influence in the south (Rotter, 1987). In aid of Diem, the U.S, apart from the catholic refugees movement to south, initially deployed close to 2,000 military personnel and later reinforced this number to 16,300 in 1963. In 1965, President Johnson made the war escalate even further by launching air strikes and ground forces on northern Vietnam (Kahin, 1986). The 1968s Tet offensive made America change its stand on the war making U.S be against the war.

U.S president Richard Nixon called for Vietnamization and directed the withdrawal of American troops from South Vietnam thus enabling the south to fight the war intensely. In 1970, Richard tried to deter North Vietnamese forces into the South by deploying U.S forces to destroy Cambodias communist supply establishments (Rotter, 1987). Based on Cambodias neutrality, this sparked anti war protests especially in the nations campuses. Thus in the name of democracy U.S neglected the freedom and rights of the Vietnam people. According to president Johnson, America was involved in the war to assert the independence and freedom of the southern Vietnamese people even though this was not the case as U.S supported Vietnams colonial master French. In a bid to further Americas interest in Vietnam, most U.S presidents in one way or another tried to demonize Vietnamese leaders who were against colonialism. The Vietnam War had thus been a big lie by the United States government to both her people and the Vietnamese people.