Credibility and Consequences

Altering perceptions of likely futures can hurt the forces of reaction.

During his presidency, Richard Nixon argued that public opposition to the Vietnam War was undermining the American negotiating position. The reasoning was that if the North Vietnamese leadership saw large sections of the American public taking an anti-war and pro-withdrawal position, they would interpret that as a lack of American resolve to fight against them, and would therefore be more intransigent. After all, if American involvement was hurting Nixon’s electoral prospects, didn’t that pressure him to make a deal quickly? And if there was a serious possibility that Nixon would be gone by the start of 1973, why not just wait and see, in the hope of getting a better deal from an administration more anxious to withdraw? I believe that regardless of consequence, it was fine and even imperative to oppose the war, but Nixon’s reasoning was sound in logic if not morality: had there been a Democratic nominee in 1972 with a boldly pro-withdrawal stance and a serious chance of winning, it would only have made sense for the North Vietnamese negotiators to stall. As it happened, George McGovern was not that guy, and so this hypothetical would remain so.

Now, as then, we are faced with a deeply crooked President who rose to power on a wave of reactionary cultural grievance. But there is a difference: 2028 will not be 1972. We are almost certainly going to win that year, and people can see it. If they are smart, they are accounting for it. …

Continue reading this article by Lucy, “Credibility and Consequences,” here: https://www.liberalcurrents.com/credibility-and-consequences/