You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The later 1960s were the years in which a large and growing part of the American people turned against the assumptions on which the post-war Dream had rested. The Vietnam War demanded that the young die for a cause many came to reject; the counterculture repudiated the consumer abundance and conformist respectability that the affluent society had defined as the good life; and a new wave of movements — anti-war, women's liberation, student radicalism — insisted that the Dream, as officially defined, was neither just nor worth having. For a study of the American Dream this is the great fracture: the moment when the confident national consensus of the affluent 1950s and the liberal hour split apart, and when the very affluence that had produced a large, educated, prosperous younger generation gave that generation the security and the leisure to question the terms of the promise. The protest of these years was, in a sense, a rebellion of the Dream's own children.
For this Edexcel breadth study the topic advances the American people thread to its most turbulent phase and marks the collapse of the liberal consensus that the Great Society represented. It shows the war shattering the Cold War confidence in American power that underpinned the affluent society; it shows the counterculture and the new movements contesting the meaning of the Dream itself; and it sets up the crisis of confidence and the conservative backlash that follow (Lessons 8 and 9). The analytical task is to weigh the scale and impact of the protest — how far it genuinely reshaped American life and how far it provoked a reaction that would ultimately defeat it — and to hold together the idealism of the movements and the deep divisions they both expressed and deepened.
By the end of this lesson you will be able to:
This lesson belongs to Edexcel 9HI0 Paper 1, Option 1F (Route F): "In search of the American Dream: the USA, c1917-96" — a breadth study assessed by extended analytical essays and by the evaluation of historians' interpretations. Within our own teaching sequence it opens the collapse of consensus that runs through the later course, following directly from the overreach of the Great Society (Lesson 6) and setting up the Watergate crisis (Lesson 8) and the conservative revival that answered the disorder of these years (Lesson 9).
Because Paper 1 is a breadth paper, examiners reward command of change over time and judgements that range across the period. Keep asking how far the protest reshaped the American Dream, and how far it summoned the reaction that would defeat it. (For precise assessment weightings and question wording, always consult the official Edexcel specification and sample assessment materials rather than any paraphrase.)
American involvement in Vietnam was a gradual escalation across four presidencies, but it was under Lyndon Johnson — the architect of the Great Society — that it became a full-scale war, and the tragedy of the liberal hour is that the same president who sought to extend the Dream at home destroyed his presidency in a war abroad.
| President | Key actions in Vietnam |
|---|---|
| Eisenhower (1954-61) | Supported South Vietnam with advisers and aid after the French defeat; the "domino theory" justified involvement |
| Kennedy (1961-63) | Increased advisers from around 900 to 16,000; supported the coup against President Diem (November 1963) |
| Johnson (1963-69) | Massive escalation from 23,000 troops (1964) to 536,000 (1968); the Rolling Thunder bombing campaign |
| Nixon (1969-74) | Vietnamisation; secret bombing of Cambodia; the Paris Peace Accords (1973) and withdrawal |
The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (August 1964) gave Johnson virtually unlimited authority to use force in Southeast Asia, on the basis of alleged attacks on US destroyers — the first real, the second almost certainly imaginary. The war that followed was unlike any the United States had fought. The Viet Cong's guerrilla tactics negated American technological superiority; General William Westmoreland's strategy of attrition, measured in "body counts" rather than territory, offered no clear route to victory; and although the US dropped more bombs on Vietnam than all sides had used in the Second World War, bombing failed to break North Vietnamese resolve. A widening "credibility gap" opened between the administration's optimistic public claims and the reality on the ground — and it was this gap, as much as the fighting, that corroded trust in government.
The turning point was the Tet Offensive of January 1968, a coordinated assault on over a hundred cities and installations across South Vietnam, including the US Embassy in Saigon. Militarily it was a costly failure for the communists, who held no objectives; politically and psychologically it was devastating, because it exposed the credibility gap so starkly. When Walter Cronkite, the most trusted newscaster in America, declared the war "mired in stalemate", Johnson reportedly understood that he had lost the country; his approval collapsed, and on 31 March 1968 he announced that he would not seek re-election.
The war also transformed the way Americans experienced conflict, and this is essential to understanding why it fractured the consensus so deeply. Vietnam was the first "television war": nightly news footage brought the fighting, the casualties and the burning villages into American living rooms with an immediacy no previous conflict had possessed, so that the gap between official optimism and visible reality was impossible to ignore. It was also a war fought disproportionately by the poor and by the young: the operation of the draft, with its deferments for college students, meant that the burden of fighting fell most heavily on working-class and, in particular, African American conscripts, sharpening the sense that the war was both unjust and unequally borne. The very inequality of sacrifice fed directly into the argument, examined below, over whether the American Dream's promise of equal citizenship extended to those asked to die for it. The year 1968 was the hinge of the whole crisis: Tet in January, Johnson's withdrawal in March, the assassination of Martin Luther King in April and of Robert Kennedy in June, and the violent chaos at the Democratic Convention in Chicago in August combined to produce a sense of national unravelling that no single event could have created. For the American Dream, Vietnam did something profound: it broke the Cold War confidence in American power and virtue that had underwritten the whole post-war settlement, and it turned a generation raised in affluence against the government that had promised them the good life.
Opposition to the war grew from small campus protests into a mass movement that convulsed American society, and its trajectory tracks the fracturing of consensus itself.
| Phase | Character |
|---|---|
| 1965-66 | Campus-based; teach-ins and early protests; opposition mainly from the New Left and students |
| 1967 | Mass mobilisation — around 100,000 marched on the Pentagon in October 1967; opposition spread to clergy, professionals and some politicians |
| 1968 | Tet galvanised opposition; violent clashes at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago; anti-war candidates (Eugene McCarthy, Robert Kennedy) challenged the administration |
| 1969-70 | Nationwide Moratorium marches (October 1969); the Kent State shootings (May 1970), where the Ohio National Guard killed four students; the Cambodia incursion sparked campus strikes across the country |
| 1971-73 | The Pentagon Papers, leaked by Daniel Ellsberg, revealed years of official deception; Vietnam Veterans Against the War organised; public opinion turned firmly against the war |
The movement was never monolithic, and this is essential to any judgement of its impact. It ranged from liberal politicians who favoured a negotiated peace to radical students who saw the war as an expression of American imperialism, and its more radical elements — flag-burning, the rhetoric of revolution — repelled as many Americans as they persuaded. Its effect was double-edged: it constrained Johnson's options and contributed to his withdrawal, and it helped turn elite and public opinion against the war, yet Richard Nixon won the presidency in 1968 and re-election in 1972 in part by mobilising the resentment the movement provoked. For the American Dream, the anti-war movement dramatised the deepest question of the era — whether the young owed their lives to a state whose promises they no longer believed — and in doing so it split the nation between those who saw protest as conscience and those who saw it as betrayal.
Alongside the political protest ran a broader cultural revolt: the counterculture that rejected the mainstream values of the affluent society. Its adherents — overwhelmingly young, white and middle-class, the beneficiaries of the very prosperity they spurned — repudiated materialism, conformity and "the establishment" in favour of communal living, drug experimentation and sexual liberation. Rock music became the vehicle of protest and identity, and the Woodstock festival of August 1969 came to symbolise, for a moment, the counterculture's idealism and its scale. Intellectually, the New Left gave the revolt a politics: Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) had issued the Port Huron Statement in 1962, calling for a "participatory democracy" that would replace the managed, bureaucratic consensus of Cold War America.
For a study of the American Dream, the counterculture is the sharpest possible challenge to the mid-century promise. The affluent society, examined in Lesson 4, had defined the good life as suburban home ownership, consumer abundance and respectable conformity; the counterculture declared that life empty. Its critique was that the Dream of things was a betrayal of the Dream of self — that a society could grow rich in goods and impoverished in meaning. This was not, on the whole, a movement of the excluded demanding entry to the Dream, as the civil rights movement had been; it was a movement of the included rejecting the Dream on offer. That is precisely why it provoked so fierce a reaction: to the working-class Americans who formed the traditional Democratic base and who had struggled toward the very security the counterculture despised, its contempt for hard work, patriotism and respectability looked like ingratitude and decadence.
The counterculture was also deeply ambiguous, and a mature judgement must weigh its idealism against its contradictions. Its rejection of materialism was itself made possible by the affluence it condemned — only a society rich enough to guarantee its young a comfortable future could produce a mass movement with the leisure to renounce comfort — and its experiments with drugs and communal living often collapsed into self-indulgence or disillusion as the decade wore on. The idealism of Woodstock in 1969 was shadowed only months later by darker episodes that punctured the dream of a peaceful youth utopia, and by the early 1970s much of the movement's energy had dissipated. Yet its cultural influence proved genuinely lasting where its political and communal projects did not: attitudes to authority, personal freedom, sexuality, the environment and the very idea of the "establishment" were permanently altered, and much that seemed radical in 1967 had become mainstream a generation later. The historian's task is to separate this durable cultural legacy from the transience of the movement's more utopian forms. The counterculture's political effect, meanwhile, was largely counter-productive: its visible excesses helped drive a wedge through the New Deal coalition and handed the emerging conservative movement a potent symbol of disorder and decadence against which to define itself — the backlash that the following lessons trace.
The ferment of the later 1960s also transformed the women's movement, carrying it well beyond the legal reforms of the Great Society. Building on the discontent Betty Friedan had named and on the organising experience many women had gained in the civil rights and anti-war movements — where they often found themselves relegated to subordinate roles even by radical men — a more radical women's liberation movement emerged, challenging not only legal discrimination but the whole structure of gender roles in the family, the workplace and the culture. It demanded reproductive rights, equal opportunity and an end to the domestic confinement that the affluent society had idealised, and it reframed "the personal" as political — insisting that the arrangements of the household, long treated as a private matter beyond the reach of politics, were in fact a central site of inequality and power. For the American Dream this was a decisive widening of the promise: the movement insisted that opportunity and self-determination, so long defined in male terms, must extend fully to women — an argument that, unlike the counterculture's rejection of the Dream, sought rather to claim its promise more completely.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.