In her book “Hardhats, Hippies, and Hawks,” Historian Penny Lewis argues that the split over the Vietnam War between “elite doves” and “reactionary hardhats” was more of a stereotype than a reality. She supports this argument by pointing out that the anti-war movement was diverse and included a wide range of individuals from different backgrounds, including blue-collar workers and veterans. Additionally, Lewis notes that many anti-war activists were not necessarily pacifists, but rather opposed the Vietnam War specifically due to its perceived illegitimacy and the harm it was causing to American soldiers and Vietnamese civilians. Overall, Lewis suggests that the simplistic dichotomy of “elite doves” versus “reactionary hardhats” does not accurately reflect the complexity of the anti-war movement and its motivations. The term “elite doves” refers to individuals who hold high positions in society and are known for their preference towards peaceful resolutions to conflicts. They are often associated with diplomatic efforts and negotiations. On the other hand, “reactionary hardhats” are individuals who hold conservative views and are resistant to change. They often prioritize maintaining traditional values and may be more inclined toward using force to resolve conflicts. These terms are commonly used in discussions related to politics and international relations. In the chapter titled “Nixon and the antiwar movement,” Penny Lewis discusses the strategies used by President Nixon to suppress the antiwar movement during the Vietnam War. She highlights Nixon’s use of law enforcement agencies to monitor and disrupt protests, as well as his efforts to divide and weaken the movement by appealing to more conservative elements of society. Lewis also explores the impact of Nixon’s policies on the antiwar movement, including the decline of mass mobilization and the rise of more militant and radical factions. George Wallace and Richard Nixon both tapped into the stereotype of the “elite doves” and “reactionary hardhats” for political advantage. They did this by appealing to the fears and prejudices of their supporters, and by positioning themselves as champions of the working class. Wallace, in particular, was known for his populist rhetoric and his appeals to white working-class voters. Nixon, meanwhile, sought to portray himself as a tough law-and-order candidate who would stand up to the perceived excesses of the anti-war movement. Both men were able to use these stereotypes to their advantage, and to win the support of voters who felt marginalized or ignored by the political establishment. The source of antagonism for White working-class Americans cannot be solely attributed to the anti-war left. But also through the changing economy and societal values, and they perceive their voices as unheard in the political arena. It is important to address these underlying issues to bridge the divide and promote unity among all Americans. it is worth noting that the democratic party’s support for the Vietnam War and its failure to address the concerns of antiwar activists may have contributed to the realignment.