While it is easy to say the split over Vietnam in the late 60s and early 70s was between elite doves and reactionary hardhats, the real split came from class divisions. George Wallace and Richard Nixon tapped into this stereotype to push working-class Americans further to the right of the political scale. Working-class Americans were largely the demographic fighting in Vietnam. They are the ones actually fighting the war, so animosity when they see liberal elites, who avoided the war and draft, protesting against their friends, family, or even themselves who were in Vietnam. While the elite upper-class whites of America supported progressive movements, lower-income whites became suspicious of change (165). Nixon found this divide in Vietnam protests a way to bring the working-class vote to the Republican party (167). Nixon, while campaigning on drawing troops from Vietnam, continued the war efforts and attempted to discredit anti-war protests (169). His “Silent Majority” speech drew on the unpopularity of the protesters and stated he, along with the silent working class was against these protests (170). By focusing on this divide between elit doves and reactionary hardhats, Nixon was able to pull the hardhats to his side by showing he agreed with them and worked for them.
Yet, even if there were no anti-war left, the antagonism between white elites and the white working class would have still existed, and this divide would have still been seen politically. The class divide was seen through these anti-war and pro-war protests, but for many working class they didn’t necessarily agree with being in Vietnam, yet they protested against the protesters anyway (173). This frustration was about class and power, not the war (174). There was a growing cultural divide between the upper class and the working class. Working-class Americans saw the upper class as elitists who thought they could judge anything fueled anger (176). In addition, working-class, white Americans felt betrayed and abandoned. They no longer felt represented by their government. For Democrats, trying to appeal and connect to this reactionary working class didn’t seem worth it (181). The media and the Republican party further pushed this idea that the Democratic party no longer stood for the working class, and the anti-war movement amplified the divide (184).
I think the Democratic party may have been able to prevent this political realignment by showing more interest in the working-class Americans’ needs, but at the same time, I think there were other, more important, progressive movements that the left was focused on and working-class got pushed to the side. This allowed the Republican party to swoop in. No matter what, I think the class divide may have been too large, and the working class was too angry at liberal elites for the Democratic party to stop the realignment. Still to this day, the Republican party says they are for working-class Americans despite policies that show they aren’t. And, I think there is an elitism within the Democratic party where the left-leaning often position themselves above those who are conservative which is driving this divide deeper.
Will Wright 
I agree that class divide may have been too big of an issue to handle, but there could have been more attention shown to the needs of the working class. I see this issue with the elites being apartent today as well. In Dr. Sandel’s book, Tyranny of Merit, it discussed the anger amongst the working class and the elite. I think we see the emergence of these issues here because as education grows more expensive, the working class may not require the same level of education or may not be able to afford it. This, as a result, perpetuates the divide between both sectors of the population and also prevents coverage of working class issues adequately. And this is further seen in institutions and news coverage that can perpetuate this divide. For example, intellectual news sources being behind a paywall and distrust within the education systems like schools and the overall department.
LikeLike
Great post, Emma!
I like how you included a few specific reasons why the working class would feel animosity towards the liberal elites, such as the liberal elites appearing to avoid the draft, and protesting against not only the war, but against the people who fought in it themselves. You reasons reminded me of an individual I know personally who fought in Vietnam right after he graduated high school. Once he returned home, he attended Augustana. To this day, he feels a lot of pride over fighting in Vietnam and believes that it was a just, necessary, and moral war. He spoke to me once about how he resented the students in his classes, as the majority of them avoided the draft and were against the war. He spoke of how those “know-nothing-liberals” didn’t “know a damn” about what the war was really like, and he loathed having to hear their opinions about it. He especially hated how his professors tried to teach him about the war, when he had the lived experience. He shares the exact reasons you listed for why many working class Americans grew to resent the college liberals, so I would say that your reasons are spot on!
LikeLike