An Exploration into the Rhetoric Surrounding the Vietnam Conflict

The role of the president, though multifaceted and ever-evolving, is primarily to serve as a means of communication between the innerworkings of the government and the American people. There are many ways in which the tenure of the Commander in Chief can be evaluated; they can be appraised on their ability to relate to the public, their desire to incite change, and even the general attitude of our society following their term. The fascinating feature of studying their rhetoric and their style of communication is that it provides an insight into all of the aforementioned factors of a successful or unsuccessful leader. But this assessment would be of very little substance without some sort of contextual support. To simply study the way in which any given president “communicates” is an incredibly taxing task, as each commander must do so in an individual context; which in turn, would force the viewer to delve into each of these rhetorical components. That is also not withholding the sheer volume of possible sources to explore. Although there are only about 80 years of documented audio bites from various presidential speeches and even less recorded visually, each president leaves with them a legacy of speeches indicative to their time in office. Unfortunately, separate from audio and visual support, the study of their rhetoric is placed in a position of limited understanding, forcing questions of speaking style and public comfort forever unanswered.

Upon facing the task of finding a topic for this paper, I found myself keeping all of these factors in mind. It would have been completely reasonable to focus on a single president and evaluate the ways in which they communicated with his constituents; delving into each of the issues that he was forced to face and examining the ways in which he relayed these hurdles to the American public. However, such a broad topic seemed to be, at least personally, devoid of passion. I wanted to pick on one particular adversity that infiltrated a president’s term; an issue that would forever be a mark on his legacy. It was at this moment the unfortunate conflict that served as a black veil across the nation for approximately fifteen years (although the war lasted for about twenty years, it was not truly on the radar of many Americans until the Kennedy administration). Upon this revelation of interest, I also came to the realization that the complexities and nuances of the public’s relationship with the Vietnam Conflict should not be confined to a cross-section study of just one president’s contribution to the impact of this association. Additionally, in doing so this would allow for a rhetorical timeline to be established which would serve as a means to convey the various ways in which the public’s relationship with the presidency changed in arguably the most significant period of time in recent history; at least within the domestic arena.

With all of this context firmly established, the definitive logistics of this paper can be better explored. Given the nature of the Vietnam Conflict, I found it best to explore each president’s oral participation in chronological order. Within each of their tenures, each president will also be evaluated using various factors and outcomes that impacted and were affected by the war. Although this may change from president to president, I will do my best to establish an overarching narrative that will best reflect my intentions. To be clear, it is my goal to look at the terms of John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon and assess the ways in which their ability to relay information regarding the war impacted their presidency, the public, and the way in which they will be remembered.

The Kennedy Era

Born into an incredibly affluent Boston family, it would be quite reasonable to say that Kennedy had a relatively fortunate upbringing. That is not to say that wealth allows for the absence of difficulty; it is simply an admission that any familial strain is brought forth by internal action and not that of a larger force; that force being a failure to provide for one’s family as the consequence of financial struggle. In an interview with Rose Kennedy, the former-president’s mother reflected on points in her son’s youth in which he was vibrantly rebellious ; which some would say is a luxury reserved exclusively for those that could afford it. I mention this only as a means to explore some of the possible factors that may have influenced any personal sentiments and syntax that the president used while discussing the Vietnam conflict with the American people. It must be asked whether or not the fear of being drafted that possessed such an intense grasp on every young man during all of the 1960’s and half of the 1970’s was even in the mind of JFK at this time. After all, as a result of his determination, intelligence, and affluence Kennedy was able to attend Harvard University and was able to make the decision to enlist himself. As stated before, intrinsically motivated heartbreak is a gift reserved for the wealthy.

Possibly more than any of the other three presidents that will be discussed here, Kennedy was acutely aware of the consequences of war. Serving in the Navy for four years, earned six medals including a Purple Heart, and lost his older brother Joe Jr., it is fair to say that war was something incredibly personal to the young president. However, it must be asked whether or not this was representative in his rhetoric regarding the Vietnam War. Well, this is where it becomes difficult to draw the distinction between his personal sentiment towards the impending war and his efforts at effective leading. Kennedy often made his distrust of the “military industrial complex” so well known that he even coined the aforementioned phrase. But if one is to review President Kennedy’s rhetoric surrounding war, it can be separated into two distinct schools; in theory and in practice. During his commencement address at American University, JFK provided the nation with possibly his most rhetorically influential speeches. Often referenced to this day, this half hour address details the president’s hopes and plans for world peace. As Kennedy so beautifully stated,

"What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children--not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time”.

Most noticeably within this excerpt is the intense and unwavering desire for peace. This is a prime example of Kennedy’s rhetoric surrounding a theoretical notion of peace. It is hopeful, and it is ambitious, yet he designs his ideas in such a way that his goals are seemingly attainable. One should note the subtle use of historical references that draw a fascinated parallel between the American and Roman empires. This was particularly wise word choice on behalf of his speech writers because the fall of the Roman empire is often cited to be its intense militarism.

It is my conjecture that what made Kennedy such a proficient public speaker was his ability to make abstract concepts seemingly tangible. As a means to fully explain this, which will in turn make a later point much easier to dissect, I am going to make a quick digression and deconstruct one of Kennedy’s most quoted lines. Although it has very little to do with the ways in which Kennedy relayed information about the Vietnam war to the public, it is quite indicative of his rhetorical style and his means of communication. During his inaugural address, Kennedy famously declared “…ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”. I choose to cite this quote from his address because it is a fantastic example of the way in which Kennedy was proficient at making the abstract definitive. The sheer notion of serving your country has so many nuanced meanings and applications, yet this line is structured in such a way that it is applicable to nearly any situation involving a citizen and their nation. Kennedy did not need to define what this unknown action was because he wanted the American people to fill in the blank. He personally could not pinpoint a deed that would inspire each of his constituents, so he found a way to do so without corrupting or diminishing his message. So, what exactly does this have to do with Vietnam? Well, it is my belief that where Kennedy excelled in abstractions and theoretical ideas, he fell short in the tangible and finite; at least to the degree in which Kennedy could fall short at public speaking.

President Kennedy was in a particularly unfortunate dilemma when he inherited the growing turmoil that was the byproduct of the First Indochina Wars. Kennedy was highly aware of the public’s sentiments regarding any foreign conflict. Following the unspoken embarrassment that was the Korean War, which was a consequence of the intense pride brought forth by the conclusion of World War II, there were very few Americans that would be in support of additional participation in a country split in two by communism. Conversely, Kennedy was also cognizant of anti-communist sentiment that was still radiated throughout the nation; even after the ceasing of the communist inquisition of the 1950’s. Arguably, it is this zero-sum situation that was the cause of Kennedy’s equivalent of fumbling around questions regarding the sending of troops to Vietnam. It should be noted that history generally does not look favorably on these types of press interviews as a consequence of being provided the context and outcome that was impossible for the parties at the time to possess. That being said, given that Kennedy was already involved in covert operations with the CIA in the past (note the Bay of Pigs) one must wonder if the sentiments that Kennedy was providing towards the prospect of conflict at the time was simply a façade in an attempt to dispense responsibility.

Although Kennedy was placed in a seemingly situation seemingly void of victory, he was placed in a historical position marked by such tragedy that all else was overshadowed. A common sentiment that surrounds the Kennedy administration is the sense that we are essentially deprived of a conclusion. All consequences of his actions were received by his successors and a course of action that would have truly been his will never be known. When it comes to answer the question of the ways in which his relationship with Vietnam impacted his legacy, there is not much that can be said. John F. Kennedy will not be remembered by the 16,200 troops stationed in the tumultuous nation, nor by the 82 U.S. soldiers’ lives that were lost. Unfortunately, that will be a legacy that will fall onto the shoulders of Kennedy’s successor.

The Johnson Era

Contrary to Kennedy, Johnson was from much humbler beginnings; though from an equally industrious family. Much like his predecessor, Johnson was quite intelligent but from a young age lacked the natural charisma that defined the communication style of John Kennedy. However, given his modest upbringing, Johnson was instilled with a sense of righteousness that would extend throughout his entire life. So, the question that needs to be asked is in what ways, if any, did Johnson’s upbringing affect the ways in which he spoke about the Vietnam Conflict. It is my belief that in order to gain any form of insight into sentiments that President Johnson may have felt towards sending thousands of young men off to die, given that he was often so reserved when speaking on the matter to the press, one must understand the ways in which he understood his fellow Americans. For example, if a president had a very detached relationship with his constituents, it would be within the realm of possibility that he would possibly be more open to the notion of sending them off to fight. Well in fact, the inverse could be argued to be true for Johnson. Given his sheer dedication and passion for the Civil Rights movement, it would be fair to make the conclusion Johnson was incredibly sympathetic towards the American people.

That being said, such an assertion holds very little weight without any form of concrete attachment to support it. In a press conference on July 28, 1965 Johnson attempts to answer a question that is increasingly on every American’s minds: why are we in Vietnam? Taking a moment to focus on the syntax used by Johnson in this press release. In many ways, it seemed as though Johnson was adopting a paternal role with the public during his speech. He spoke in a manner that was informative, yet personal. He explained the escalation that was occurring in Vietnam and gave somewhat of an attempt at justifying why American lives were being lost there. During his speech there was an air of reverence to the words that he was speaking, as if an acknowledgement that this was an unfortunate but necessary circumstance that the nation had found itself in. That being said, this speech was given just two years into his presidency and Johnson would still have to face four more years of heartbreak and ridicule over the nation’s participation in the war. Although he was reverent, Johnson still had a nation that more or less stood behind him. This, however, could not and would not last for much longer.

A facet of the presidency that can be easily translated through their rhetoric is public sentiment; the two cannot exist separate of each other. When a society is happy with their leader, it is represented in the words he speaks to them. But when there is unrest, disappointment, and impatience, the nation’s leader must choose his words carefully and with great thought. Johnson was forced to do this for much of his second term as president; especially when discussing Vietnam. In viewing the public’s sentiments towards the Vietnam War, it is best to understand it as a downward slope of support. Ranging from individual opinions to portrayals in media, feelings towards the war and Johnson by extension greatly deteriorated over the course of the decade. With an increase of approximately 100,000 people protesting the war in 1966 to over 300,000 by 1969, Johnson was forced to use the final method of remedy that was truly under his control; his words. Unfortunately, it is at this time in which the President’s rhetoric surrounding the conflict goes from being paternally directive to crossing more into the territory of a man on trial and then finally to just plain deception. Now that is not to say that Johnson’s deliberate misdirection as to the nature of the war was done so with any malicious intent, nor would it be fair to say that he did so simply as a means to “save face” as he approached the end of his term. In fact, the assertion of either of those claims would be downright incorrect. It is often speculated by those who worked closely with Johnson that not only did he deceive the public as to the anticipated involvement in the Vietnam War as a means to protect many of his domestic efforts, that would have been inevitably dismissed and overshadowed by the conflict.

Deviating quickly from Johnson’s rhetoric surrounding public communications regarding the Vietnam War, I believe that in order to understand why Johnson spoke about the war in the way that he did, it is pertinent to fully comprehend the cultural temperature at the time. There are a handful of presidents, at least in my opinion, that were at a great disservice as a consequence of serving at the time they did. There are also some presidents who will be remembered quite fondly for the same reason. Johnson manages to fall onto each of these lists. During his term, the United States the explosion of a new counter-culture, the legal affirmation that every American is in fact created equal, and a sexual revolution brought forth with the onset of a much more user-friendly birth control. This rapid sequence of change that defined the culture allowed Johnson to propel Civil Rights legislation of such significance that it was unparalleled to anything the nation had seen following the Civil War. Conversely, however, this rapid change allowed many Americans to raise questions they would have never thought to ask before. Unfortunately for the Johnson administration, many of those questions were directly towards those in power. With all of these factors culminating in our nation’s culture, musicians like Bob Dylan and Woody Guthrie were heard among the airwaves and films like Fail-Safe and Greetings were seen at the box-office. I mention these external features to provide context into the nation that Johnson was trying to govern.

By the end of his term, LBJ was a little over 60 years old. On paper, he was the enemy for all of the youth that had learned to find their voice in the nation. However, I do not believe that he wished to see himself that way. In his address to the American people on March 31, 1968, Johnson arguably his most honest and impassioned speech of his career. It was not flowery, nor was it poetic. It did not need to sound elegant because it possessed something that could not be written on paper. This was an address that truly came from the heart. Aside from his announcement that he would not be seeking re-election and his intentions to halt bombings on North Vietnam, Johnson imparted the most resonant and impactful piece of rhetoric in his entire forty-minute address,

“There is division in the American house now. There is divisiveness among us all tonight. And holding the trust that is mine, as President of all the people, I cannot disregard the peril to the progress of the American people and the hope and the prospect of peace for all peoples. So, I would ask all Americans, whatever their personal interests or concern, to guard against divisiveness and all its ugly consequences.”

Johnson’s administration is often cited as the point in the 20th century in which the nation witnessed an intense division that its consequences are being directly seen today. This divisiveness was the result of all the previously mentioned shifts that the nation witnessed. Change is always accompanied by resistance, and with resistance comes division among those moving forward and those who are content to be left behind. I believe that Johnson was cognizant of this and did his best to combat it; to the extent of essentially abdicating his presidency.

Following this decision, our nation’s history is tainted by another, and not the last, incomplete story. We may never know if Johnson would have won the 1968 election, it cannot be said with certainty that he would have lived to see the end of his term. However, unlike his predecessor, the legacy of Lyndon Baines Johnson is not defined by charisma and public affection. We as a nation do not look back on his term with sorrowful nostalgia and ask the question of “what if?” History has remembered LBJ primarily by his involvement in Vietnam, his participation in the Civil Rights movement, and inexplicably his proclivity for tugging on his dog’s ears. But if one were to truly look at the administration of Lyndon Johnson, they would find a series of pained speeches about a war that he had an incredibly complex relationship with. They would find addresses to the American public regarding a movement that he felt great passion for and words to a generation that he did his best to understand.

The Nixon Era

Although there is quite a lot to be said about the upbringing of Richard Nixon, it is my opinion that very little of it has any influence on his attitudes towards the Vietnam War and provides very little insight into the decisions that he made in its regard. That being said, as a Quaker myself, I do believe that his participation in the faith as a youth may have had some impact on his presidency. In the very least, it provides some acumen into some of the priorities that he made in his life. I am specifically referencing his decision to enlist in the Navy during WWII. Many historians that do not look favorably upon this Nixon administration often cite this as a testament of his character. However, there are many members of the Quaker community that provide a great amount of understanding for those who chose to fight in World War II given the nature of the enemy. It is often noted that Nixon could have sought an exemption from service as both a Quaker and as a public servant. However, not only would Nixon earn five medals during his service but would remain enlisted until the mid-1960’s. I mention this case of ambiguity as a means to explore the nuances that was the cornerstone of the Nixon presidency. Many have argued on both sides of Nixon, using his religious background both for and against him. His relationship with war as a raised pacifist can also be represented in the rhetoric that he used regarding the Vietnam conflict.

Nixon’s relationship with Vietnam actually predated his presidency. I do not mean during his commission as vice-president (though that does have some standing), I am speaking in regard to his communications with the Vietnam government during the 1968 election. There is a stark distinction between the rhetoric used by Nixon in private and to his constituents. Since Nixon kept a scrupulous record of his interactions, we are given an insight to his administration that cannot be provided for nearly any other president. That being said, much of the private content involving the communications of Richard Nixon and his aides and advisors are often released sporadically, so it has taken nearly 45 years to orchestrate a complete picture of his administration. Bringing us to the recently revealed collusion between Nixon and the Vietnamese government in an attempt to weaken the Democratic campaign. In his notes, Nixon is cited as reaching out to the president of Vietnam promising him a better peace deal than the one being offered by President Johnson. Consequently, this caused the peace talks between the U.S. and Vietnam to fall through, making the Democratic party look ineffective. I cite this because it is emblematic of the nature of Richard Nixon. It will be quite difficult to evaluate his rhetoric regarding the Vietnam war and his relationship with the American people simply because of his complex nature. Not many historians have been able to deconstruct as a president, let alone as a man. His rhetoric may have been indicative of his sentiments towards the war. They may have been reflective of his upbringing as a Quaker. Or was everything he said a carefully constructed image of what he wanted the public to see? Well, the best way to avoid speculation is through concrete text.

In November of 1969, Nixon addressed the American public in regard to the nation’s much opposed continued involvement in the Vietnam War. Much like his presidential campaign rival nine years earlier, Nixon references history to help explain the point that he is trying to get across. The difference this time, however, there is less room for hope in his speech. I do not think that this was a consequence of poor writing or execution but a byproduct of context. Following over a decade of involvement in the broken nation, rhetoric of hope cannot resonate below a superficial level. Nixon states,

“I pledged in my campaign for the Presidency to end the war in a way that we could win the peace. I have initiated a plan of action which will enable me to keep that pledge. The more support I can have from the American people, the sooner that pledge can be redeemed; for the more divided we are at home, the less likely the enemy is to negotiate in Paris. Let us be united for peace. Let us also be united against defeat. Because let us understand: North Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States. Only Americans can do that. Fifty years ago, in this room and at this very desk, President Woodrow Wilson spoke words which caught the imagination of a war-weary world. He said: “This is the war to end war.” His dream for peace after World War I was shattered on the hard realities of great power politics and Woodrow Wilson died a broken man. Tonight, I do not tell you that the war in Vietnam is the war to end war. But I do say this: I have initiated a plan which will end this war in a way that will bring us closer to that great goal to which Woodrow Wilson and every American President in our history has been dedicated—the goal of a just and lasting peace.”

There is quite a lot to unpack in just a paragraph of rhetoric. With each sentence comes the culmination of all the civil unrest from the Johnson administration. Every protester, every contentious observer, every young life lost. And I believe that Nixon is acutely aware of this. It is for this reason that he cites an era in American history that is before the lives of most and a distant and fading memory for others. One line that particularly stands out in many ways serves as an homage to the rhetoric of Kennedy and his commencement address at American University. The notion of a long-term peace was far more resonant on a nation that had witnessed nothing but war for so many years.

Conclusion

On just one January day, the role of the president has the potential to be redefined for an entire generation. From 1960 through 1974, that role was marked by American royalty, a tormented father figure, and a man of such complexity that he simply cannot be placed into a box. Each of those presidencies was shrined by either personal or national tragedy and each of their legacies were cut short by immeasurably different reasons. It was my goal to say by the end of this paper that one of the three presidents that had to directly address the American people and explain why he had to send their sons off to die did it better than another. Retrospectively a fruitless task. All that can be truly understood from their rhetoric was that each of these men, a veteran of the final global war, possessed a respect for the carnage that they simply could not escape. In regard to their rhetoric, each president possessed a trait unique to their own spoken word. Kennedy held a mastery of the English language unparalleled to either of his successors.

However, he did not have the southern grit that allowed him to navigate the tough questions. Johnson was not necessarily the public speaker that many Americans yearned for following the tragic and premature departure of his predecessor, but he had a compassion that transcended any stage fright that might have gotten in his way. Finally, much like JFK, Nixon possessed an understanding of syntax that propels the ideas of any public speaker. In contrast, Nixon used this talent not to charm but to inspire. Through his use of phrases like “the silent majority”, Nixon was able to provide acknowledgement to many of the Americans previously mentioned to be left behind due to the changes of the nation’s cultural revolution. Each president existed within the context of an incredibly different America; a country that changed so rapidly that any ability to weather that storm of transformation is truly commendable. Granted each of these men fell short in some regard, but their ability to communicate is what allowed the country to be what it is today; for better or for worse.

---

Citations

M. S. S. “Vietnam War and US: Haunting Legacy.” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 36, no. 21, 2001, pp. 1793–1795. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4410657.

McAndrews, Lawrence J. “Parallel Paths: Kennedy, the Church, and Nuclear War.” American Catholic Studies, vol. 119, no. 1, 2008, pp. 1–28. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/44195139.

“1963-6-10 Commencement Address at American University.” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/BWC7I4C9QUmLG9J6I8oy8w.aspx

“John F. Kennedy Quotations.” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/Ready-Reference/JFK-Quotations/Inaugural-Address.aspx.

“John F. Kennedy: Transcript of Broadcast with Walter Cronkite Inaugurating a CBS Television News Program. - September 2, 1963.” The American Presidency Project, www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9388.

“Lyndon B. Johnson: The President's Address to the Nation Announcing Steps To Limit the War in Vietnam and Reporting His Decision Not To Seek Reelection - March 31, 1968.” The American Presidency Project, www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=28772

James, David. “The Vietnam War and American Music.” Social Text, no. 23, 1989, pp. 122–143. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/466424.

Divine, Robert A. “Assessing Lyndon Johnson.” The Wilson Quarterly (1976-), vol. 6, no. 3, 1982, pp. 142–150. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40256327

Aitken, Jonathan. “The Nixon Character.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, vol. 26, no. 1, 1996, pp. 239–247. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27551562

May, Isaac. “The President's Friends and Foes: The Effect of the Nixon Presidency on the Divisions of American Quakerism.” Quaker History, vol. 102, no. 1, 2013, pp. 17–38. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43893716.

Marvillas, Anthony Rama. “Nixon in Nixonland.” Southern California Quarterly, vol. 84, no. 2, 2002, pp. 169–181. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41172126.

Farrell, John A., et al. “When a Candidate Conspired with a Foreign Power to Win an Election.” About Us, 6 Aug. 2017, www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vietnam-candidate-conspired-with-foreign-power-win-election-215461

“Richard Nixon: Address to the Nation on the War in Vietnam - November 3, 1969.” The American Presidency Project, www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=2303.