The Myth of the Vietnam Divide

The Vietnam War era is often remembered as a time of deep social and political divisions in the United States. One of the most persistent narratives of the late 1960s and early 1970s is that the anti-war movement was led by privileged, college-educated “elite doves,” while the “reactionary hardhats” of the White working class stood firmly behind the war. However, historian Penny Lewis challenges this conventional wisdom, arguing that the divide was more of a stereotype than a reflection of reality. The working class, she contends, was far more diverse in its political views, and many workers opposed the war for the same reasons as their wealthier counterparts. Yet, politicians like George Wallace and Richard Nixon capitalized on these stereotypes, weaponizing them for political gain.

George Wallace was a master of populist rhetoric that played on the frustrations of White working-class voters. While Wallace initially focused on segregationist themes, by the late 1960s, he had broadened his appeal by attacking so-called “pointy-headed intellectuals,” government bureaucrats, and anti-war protestors. Wallace’s speeches framed the anti-war left as spoiled radicals who disrespected hard-working Americans, fostering resentment toward the movement and, by extension, the Democratic Party.

Richard Nixon, in contrast, took a more calculated approach with his “Silent Majority” speech in 1969. He positioned himself as the champion of law and order, appealing to Americans who were exhausted by street protests, urban unrest, and what they saw as cultural upheaval. Nixon’s campaign effectively linked anti-war activism with broader anxieties about social change, making opposition to the counterculture as important as support for the war itself. His administration’s outreach to so-called “hardhats”—including White, blue-collar workers who participated in pro-war demonstrations—further cemented the idea that the working class opposed the anti-war movement, even if many did not.

If not the anti-war left, what fueled the antagonism of White working-class Americans during this period? The answer lies in economic insecurity and racial anxieties rather than just foreign policy debates. Many working-class families felt abandoned by the Democratic Party, which was increasingly associated with civil rights legislation, urban riots, and policies that they believed benefited minority groups at their expense. Economic shifts, including deindustrialization and inflation, worsened their sense of vulnerability. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party’s embrace of college-educated progressives often made working-class voters feel culturally alienated.

While some White workers did support the war, others opposed it on economic and moral grounds. Many resented being drafted while the wealthy could obtain deferments. Union leaders, particularly within the AFL-CIO, had mixed views on the war, but opposition within the rank and file was more common than is often acknowledged.

In theory, the Democratic Party could have avoided the defection of White working-class voters. A more robust commitment to economic populism—without alienating socially conservative voters—might have slowed the realignment. If Democratic leaders had emphasized job security, labor rights, and fair wages as aggressively as they pursued social reforms, they might have maintained a stronger coalition.

However, the shifting social landscape made this difficult. The Democratic Party was increasingly divided between its progressive wing, which championed civil rights and social change, and its traditional labor base, which was less comfortable with these transformations. The rise of identity politics further complicated efforts to maintain a broad working-class coalition. Meanwhile Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” actively worked to peel off White working-class voters by stoking racial grievances and presenting the Republican Party as the defender of traditional values.

Ultimately, the Democratic Party struggled to bridge these divides, leading to the political realignment that continues to shape American politics today. The idea that all working-class Americans were “hardhats” rallying behind the war was more myth than reality. Still, it was a myth that Nixon and Wallace expertly exploited, leaving lasting consequences for the political landscape.