The Year That Broke Politics: Collusion and Chaos in the Presidential Election of 1968

by Luke A. Nichter

The unknown story of the election that set the tone for today’s fractured politics
 
“The book is a delightful demolition of the many political myths that continue to muddy our understanding of that election year. . . . Nichter’s book stands out for its clear, direct prose and the scrupulous research on which it’s based.”—Barton Swaim, Wall Street Journal
 
The 1968 presidential race was a contentious battle between vice president Hubert Humphrey, Republican Richard Nixon, and former Alabama governor George Wallace. The United States was reeling from the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert F. Kennedy and was bitterly divided on the Vietnam War and domestic issues, including civil rights and rising crime. Drawing on previously unexamined archives and numerous interviews, Luke A. Nichter upends the conventional understanding of the campaign. 
 
Nichter chronicles how the evangelist Billy Graham met with Johnson after the president’s attempt to reenter the race was stymied by his own party, and offered him a Nixon, if elected, would continue Johnson’s Vietnam War policy and also not oppose his Great Society, if Johnson would soften his support for Humphrey. Johnson agreed.
 
Nichter also shows that Johnson was far more active in the campaign than has previously been described; that Humphrey’s resurgence in October had nothing to do with his changing his position on the war; that Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” has been misunderstood, since he hardly even campaigned there; and that Wallace’s appeal went far beyond the South and anticipated today’s Republican populism. This eye-opening account of the political calculations and maneuvering that decided this fiercely fought election reshapes our understanding of a key moment in twentieth-century American history.

Genres: History, Politics, American History, Nonfiction, American

396 pages, Paperback

Published August 20, 2024

Reviews

[CoachJim · Rating 2 out of 5]

The conventional wisdom is that it was one of the closest elections in history, decided by a half million votes. But the Electoral College vote of 301-191, plus Wallace’s 46, was a powerful rebuke of a decade of liberalism and government overreach.
(Page 218)

The 1968 presidential election marked the beginning of the end of the New Deal era.
(Page 221)

The year 1968 saw America pivot from the progressive politics of the early 1960s to the regressive politics of Nixon that was solidified with Ronald Reagan and that continues today. The country changed politically, socially and culturally. In The Year That Broke Politics Luke A. Nichter uses the presidential election of that year to analyze how it symbolized that change.

The author covers a wide range of people and events, but his treatment of each is rather light. I detected a rightwing bias to his writing. His coverage of George Wallace and Richard Nixon was rather sympathetic. The worst section for me was his description of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Although he mentions the part police played he blames the protestors for the riot describing them in very negative and derogatory terms. He does not try to explain their reasons for protesting.

The percentage of popular votes against Humphrey represented a shift to the right in response to the chaos of that year. The author states that “At no time during the year did Americans seem to be voting for someone or something. They almost always seemed to vote against.” (Page 221) That explains his lack of any coverage of the campaign by Robert Kennedy.

The author at times seems confused as to whether the biggest issue in the campaign was “Law and Order’ or the Vietnam War. In the Epilogue he goes to great lengths to paint a flattering picture of Lyndon Johnson’s regret for not achieving peace in Vietnam. This is the man almost solely responsible for our level of involvement in Vietnam. I know he inherited Vietnam from Kennedy but he is the one who committed ground troops and all the support that that would require. He consistently refused to recognize the war as a failure and the government of South Vietnam as a corrupt regime.

I also had an issue with his portrait of Hubert Humphrey. He states: “Hubert Humphrey would have made a great president in a relatively tranquil era in which the nation had the means to expand the Great Society programs. The late 1960s were not that time.” (Page 224) This book was published in 2023 so he certainly knew the history that Richard Nixon left for us.

The year 1968 and the changes that occurred deserve a good book of historical analysis. This is not that book.

[Docent Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

What secret did world famous evangelist Billy Graham, Richard M. Nixon and Lyndon Baines Johnson share, but hide from the world in 1968? While it may sound like the premise for an unlikely summer political thriller, this is only one of the many surprises Professor Luke Nichter reveals for the first time in his latest ground-breaking book, The Year That Broke Politics.

“So much of what passes for history today is not based on rigorous research. Too often it is based on preconceived ideas… We should demand better”. With that, one might expect a history that is as interesting as watching paint dry. However, Nichter offers a clear and very engaging look at one of the most interesting presidential election campaigns in the last 150 years that, while deeply researched and copiously footnoted, is very accessible for the most casual of readers. And most importantly, steers free of “preconceived ideas”. What you may learn will be surprising!

Nichter’s new scholarship disrupts the conventional “what we think we know”. We get new answers to questions like, what is the untold reason Johnson did not seek a second term? What was Hanoi really after at the Paris Peace Talks? Did, in fact, Richard Nixon maliciously torpedo a Vietnam War peace deal to coldly steal the election? Was Humphrey destined to lose the election? How is it that an unlikely and unsuccessful third-party candidate from the Deep South shapes today’s political landscape? (And while today’s pundits compare Trump to Nixon, is Trump really the benefactor of that near-forgotten third player?) What about that shared secret between the politicians and the evangelist?

While not a summer novel, the reader will be just as intrigued with this very readable page-turner of a history.

[Graham · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just finished:

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2023.

A paradigm changer!!!!

Nichter argues that Nixon won in 1968 because he and Nixon made a deal. Nixon would support Johnson's policies regarding Vietnam and support The Great Society. Nixon also promised not to criticize Johnson directly.

Johnson personally saw Nixon as a misunderstood man. Both came from humble background, both attended non-elite colleges, both felt rejected by the Easter Coast Establishment, both felt they had something to prove. Johnson also believed that Humphrey would undo Johnson's achievements.

When Nixon or Johnson wanted to exchange messages, they trusted Billy Graham to do so and keep it off the record (Graham was close to both men).

The Soviet Union was leery of Nixon and Anatoly Dobrynin offered Humphrey's cash strapped campaign money (no evidence exists indicating Humphrey took it.

When it came to October surprises, Nichter argues that previous historians have over blown the Chennault Affair. Much of Mrs. Chennault's claims couldn't be verified and Built Diem, Chennault's main South Vietnamese contact, knew Johnson had wire taps on him and that Johnson's people were reading his letters. Additionally, neither Johnson or Humphrey didn't believe Nixon committed any dirty tricks, at least they didn't say so in their memoirs.

This is a must read.

[Caleb Brussel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating book about the 1968 presidential election. Nichter spends most of the book showing how different events in the 1960s led up to this unique election. Also it was interesting to learn about Billy Graham’s involvement in the Democratic and Republican camps.

I didn’t know too much about Vietnam, civil rights movement, New Deal, etc., so lots to learn from this book!

[Greta · Rating 1 out of 5]

Awful narration of audiobook. Probably would have considered the historical analysis more of the author didn’t constantly try to defend and comment on how certain behavior wasn’t “as racist as it seemed”.

[Avery James · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sort of a 3.5 but I'll round it up. Basically a revisionist take on the George Wallace campaign and Lyndon Johnson's aims, the author extensively cites Billy Graham's diary among other people very close to the man to demonstrate LBJ actually saw Nixon as the better inheritor and defender of his legacy. I thought the revisionist take on Wallace was okay but unconvincing, the main thrust was actually convincing.

It's not like Gelman's Race of the Century where a hot take like 1960 being stolen is tacked on at the end citing a Lt. Gov. in Texas. It's methodically and carefully demonstrated. So it's a good read. This book clearly draws on the author's extensive research for The Last Brahmin on Henry Cabot Lodge Jr's appointment to South Vietnam. So maybe I'll finish that one now. The book does come across so relentlessly pessimistic on Humphrey to an extent that makes me wary and wanting to read another book on his campaign for context.

[Mauberley]

x

[Michael Cotten · Rating 5 out of 5]

How do you take the story of a major political event that is seemingly known through and through and upend all that we thought we knew and shed new light on the story revealing far greater detail and correcting false assumptions at the same time? Research. Through diligent research, and by reaching out to new sources of information, Luke Nichter has once again shed new light on a topic of political and historical significance, correcting misconceptions, and added new details to a period of time that was not nearly as well known or understood as previously thought. This is what historical research is all about: finding new sources, and adding those new sources to the story we already know to add to the accuracy of the story.
Luke Nichter has done this to the highest degree. Utilizing sources previously unused such as the notebooks of Billy Graham (which in part reveal the unique and complex relationship between LBJ and Nixon), the recorded phone conversations during the 1968 election (including those between LBJ, Nixon, Humphreys, and Wallace as well as those related to the alleged role of Anna Chennault in the prevention of South Vietnam agreeing to a peace arranged through LBJ) and the numerous personal interviews conducted over the years, Luke Nichter has been able to paint the picture of the complex 1968 election with more detail and more depth than previously thought possible.
The inclusion of the notebooks from Billy Graham are quite revealing. The degree to which Reverend Graham relayed messages between Richard Nixon and LBJ was quite interesting and revealing. Through the notebooks of Billy Graham we are able to see how the connection between Nixon and LBJ grew, and how that relationship would continue on beyond 1968. It also shows Graham as a person of influence wanting to help an ailing nation return to a less volatile path. The remarks from Graham on this subject help the reader to see the importance of the election of 1968 from an angle beyond that of mere politics and reveals the importance of making the transition from the LBJ administration to that of his successor as smooth as possible. That smooth transition and the growing relationship between LBJ and Nixon proved to be the most interesting part as it sheds new light on why the events of Nixon’s first term unfolded as they did and suggests LBJ’s role up until his death may have been more critical to the Nixon administration than previously thought.
For those who have not yet studied the politics of the election of 1968, and for those who thought they knew all there was to know, this book is a must read. It adds depth and clarity to a period of U.S. history that was very complex and pivotal, and does so in a way that a researcher and an armchair historian can both use and enjoy. This work will be a key reference on the topic for decades to come.
Michael W. Cotten, M.A.
Historical Research Consultant

[Drtaxsacto · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was interesting and trying at the same time. The author, who is a professor of history at Chapman University, is an authority on Nixon. He does some interesting discussions of many of the major figures around the election in 1968 (Nixon, Humphrey, Johnson, Wallace). But after reading the book I remain unconvinced that 1968 was a year that “broke politics”.

The author seems to ignore significant evidence that LBJ had lost control of his political fate after his March 31 statement withdrawing from the election. His numbers were in the toilet. Had he been convinced that he could run - Nixon would have cleaned his clock. Although he does not suggest it in the manuscript I think the author is a subscriber to the James McGregor Burns theory of the presidency - as the primary figure in American politics. My undergraduate thesis was on that point and I argued then that LBJ was in a spiral which could not recover (the paper was turned in the week before LBJs announcement).

LBJ played dirty in his whole career from his reputation as “landslide Lyndon” in one of this first campaigns to his series of October surprises, he tried to use every lever at his command to bend the system to his will. But in the last nine months of 1968 he seemed increasingly out of touch with his own situation. One other problem which LBJ had was the absolute perfidy of some of his key advisors (Harriman and Clifford come to mind). Nichter describes the disloyalty which those two and other demonstrated against their president. Our Vietnam policy was in the last years of Johnson's presidency a mishmash of conflicting ideas - Harriman and Clifford contributed to that. But at the same time LBJ had the New Deal optimism about the ability of experts to surmount any problem either domestic or international.

He does a good job of the uneven balance that was George Wallace. The portrayal of Wallace by the press was always a gross over-simplification. But the book does justice to just how bad ad hoc decision making (like naming Curtis LeMay as his running mate) was for Wallace’s campaign.

I was concerned about the author’s heavy reliance on memoirs from major figures. Disraeli coined the term “anecdotage” to denote the quality of memoirs. Most are attempts by public figures who want to tell their stories and embellish their reputations. Were that the only sources the author used this book would merit only one star. But there are points where the book contributes to our understand of history of that year. For example, he does a pretty deep dive on whether there was anything to the conspiracy story that the left has painted on Nixon’s relationship with Anna Chenault - the author concludes that the story is bunk. He presents some interesting information on how biased the press was in relation to Nixon.

He also gives a lot more credit to the Humphrey campaign than I think the history merits. Humphrey had been emasculated by LBJ who even in his diminished state tried to control results. LBJ played HHH against Nixon - and the book details that behavior. Humphrey vacillated between being a lapdog for a very unpopular president and being independent. That put him in an untenable position. Nichter is very clear in his assessment of the race - the appearance of a close race was illusory. Between Nixon and Wallace they gained 57% of the popular vote. HHH lost heavily in the Electoral College - where the real election happens.

Nichter seems to ignore two important works both written near the 1968 election which talked about the disaffection of the electorate for big government programs - Ben Wattenberg and Richard Scammon’s The Real Majority and Kevin Phillip’s The Emerging Republican Majority described the shift in key voting groups from the disaffection of union members from their leadership (even though George Meany poured tons of money in the HHH campaign) and as importantly the shifts in ethnic voters (especially Poles and Italians who had been key parts of the New Deal Coalition). Both books were required reading if you were active in DC politics of the time.

The more fundamental issue here is whether it is reasonable to argue that 1968 was a watershed year. Clearly it was tumultuous but while many of the forces in that year were in a state of transition but I think a stronger case can be made that for democrats 1972 may have been a more significant election. In the run up to 1972 McGovern and the progressives began to change the rules for the democratic convention and from that time on - except for one or two elections the progressives have been dominant. But the progressives were and are not the FDR progressives. Biden’s apparent shift from moderate is attributable to the change in the rules 40 years earlier. On the GOP side, the 1980 election seems a lot more important. Nixon was a new deal liberal light. His lasting legacy in conservative politics is limited at best. Beginning in 1976 conservatives began to assert a series of memes that are important even today. In one sense Trump has been an anomaly for conservatives. From my perspective, and with the potential hazard of projections in real time, I believe conservatives will revert back to a smaller government mode from their current mix of Trumpian policies of support for a vigorous role for government. (You can certainly discern where my politics lie in relation to both Biden and Trump!)

This is a somewhat longer review than I often do so one should conclude that while I did not love either the key premise of the book or many elements for those interested in the 1968 election Nichter offers a lot to think about.

[K · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am not an expert on Cold War or Vietnam politics, so I can't judge whether the author's claims of breaking apart myths about the 1968 are truly groundbreaking. They might be rather well known features of that busy, chaotic era that this author has merely chosen to emphasize. But it's nonetheless and interesting book, albeit probably a lot less revealing that claimed.

I don't understand the title, either. "The Year that Broke Politics." What is meant by breaking politics? How can politics be broken? Politics is the political give-and-take, which exists all the time. It might change, but that's not the same thing as breaking it. I guess that a Trumpish fascist who outlaws political parties and jails opponents could be said to be breaking politics in the sense that democracy as we know it would be undermined. But that isn't what happened in 1968, not by a long shot. I'd argue that rather than breaking politics, the 1968 campaign brought politics to a new height, created new trends, and actually brought the parties together in some significant ways. Rather than breakage, this author's research indicates a new confluence of attitudes.

What do I mean by a confluence? Consider the key issue that is explored in this book, which is the relationship of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. Johnson, a Democrat, was president at the time. He chose not to run in 1968 when he realized his party was split on his economic, civil rights and Vietnam policies, as indicated by the rise of left-wingers like Eugene McCarthy and Southern racists like George Wallace, each of whom was siphoning off traditional Democratic voters. Nixon was the Republican nominee, a slimy human being who for a brief moment that year became a likeable underdog, a resurrected figure after his close loss to John F. Kennedy in 1960. The unusual thing was that Johnson was very supportive of Nixon throughout the campaign, rather than going all-out to help Johnson's own Vice President, Hubert Humphrey. This book discusses that Johnson did this because he felt Nixon would come closer to upholding Johnson's Vietnam policy of supporting the Saigon government than would Humphrey. So what we have here is a confluence of political parties -- with Johnson's type of Democrat allying with Republicans. Remarkable when you think about how the parties act today.

Another force of confluence is the Rev. Billy Graham. This makes me sick to my stomach because all evangelicals are evil, and they are the source of a lot of this nation's social problems today. In this book we get a view of Graham sitting with and counseling both Johnson and Nixon, worming his slimy way into the White House and policy meetings over and over, while declaring he's not political. This interference by religious types on the governing of our country has been tolerated and even celebrated, and, of course, it reached higher heights with the lunacy of the Reagan-Bush years and then the pretend Christianity of Trump and the right wing today. I can't say we see the seeds of it with Graham because it predates him by decades, but we see the pernicious ways that it operated. Again, this was a confluence of parties under Christians, a terrible trend for our country. (I guess you could say that Christians are breaking politics?)

The Wallace stuff is kind of interesting, though I think the author goes too far in trying to make Wallace seem reasonable. He was a terrible racist, and the author tries to excuse this by saying he only pretended to be a racist because he was just a political opportunist who saw an opportunity in appealing to racism. That's what we hear about the right wing today, and we can see the evils that it has unleashed. I'm not giving Wallace an inch of credit for his apologies late in life.

Those are the highlight sections of the book for me, the ones with the most impact on how the world works today. We see the shift of Southern Democrats to the Republican Party, a shift that began with their opposition to Civil Rights from the 1920s on and especially the '50s and '60s. This solidified with the idea that these spoiled, white Christians, especially men, were somehow the oppressed in America because other people were finally getting a tiny share of the action. That dishonest attitude persists today.

While most of the book is quite readable, there's a lot of garbage about one or another Johnson aide's memo about a negotiation with a North Vietnam representative or a businessperson who might have ties to someone else. This inside-the-Beltway stuff might have been interesting at the time, but it's more than 50 years after the fact, and we don't need those details. If this was a PhD thesis or a magisterial history, such as Robert Caro's work, then yeah, go for it. In this book, it just bogs things down.

In sum, if you're interested in the 1960s, this is a good addition to your reading list. It gives a sense of Nixon at his smartest and most human, a valuable reminder of how he was perceived before Watergate (with the note that there are several people quoted in this book who opposed him in 1968 precisely because they didn't trust him). It also shows how important Vietnam was to Johnson, though that's covered in a thousand other books. And it gives an interesting insight on the rise but also the limitations of Wallace's racist approach and Humphrey's last stand for a strongly progressive Democratic Party.

[W · Rating 3 out of 5]

Refreshingly Nixon-sympathetic. Effectively dismantles the “Nixon committed collusion” thesis in 68 as propounded by biased historians

[Scott Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

(Audiobook) Quite a lot has been written about 1968, from the many socio-political upheavals to the cultural shifts in American life. Among the big stories would be the presidential election of that year, which saw Richard Nixon complete one of the more unexpected comebacks in U.S. political history. Yet, even with many newer revelations about the actions of Nixon and Johnson during that year, there is always something that will come on to challenge that conventional thinking. Thus, we have The Year that Broke Politics.

In this work, Nichter offers some significant alterations to the accepted narrative about 1968. For starters, Billy Graham may have been a bigger force than anyone realized, in so far as he opened lines of communication between Nixon and Johnson, such that Johnson tacitly supported Nixon by not offering any effective support to Humphrey, even as his VP was running to continue his legacy. Johnson figured that Nixon would better carry on his legacy. Additionally, Nichter contends that Nixon never had a deliberate “Southern Strategy” that targeted white Southern Conservatives with a racial strategy. Perhaps Nixon didn’t, but advisors like Haldermann and future Republican political operatives like Atwater would acknowledge that such a strategy was a part of Republican actions.

Also, Nichter contends that George Wallace’s popularity in 1968 did not come from his segregationist stances, but his anti-big government posture, and at Wallace’s peak in 1968, he was pulling the all-important union and blue-collar vote away from the Democrats. However, Nichter holds that Wallace’s biggest mistake was picking LeMay as his running mate. A blunt talking retired general is not exactly the best option for VP in an insurgent campaign. In a way, Nichter has Wallace as pre-cursor to Trump 2016. That Nichter is somewhat more positive to Wallace will turn off people.

There is significant discussion about the Chennault affair, where Nixon is accused of subverting peace efforts by getting South Vietnam to sabotage the talks in the later stages of the 1968 campaign to help his position. Nichter goes in on the technicalities that Nixon never specifically ordered such action. Of course, Nixon had a bad habit of venting desires that aids could usually defer, but here, it may not be as clear cut as Nichter contends. Also, surprising that Nichter offers little in the way of discussion about the Nixon conversations and how Johnson had tapes on Nixon’s actions. It is a bad look for both Nixon and Johnson, but Nichter avoids it, for some reason.

Overall, a more engaging book than expected. This is trying to upend several narratives about Nixon and Johnson, and it does have some compelling arguments. Is it the end-all, be-all on this? Probably not. There are some areas to poke holes in all of the assertions. Should be interesting to see how that plays out. Not sure many will buy the positive-leaning analysis of Wallace, but it does offer some food for thought. Worth the read for a political or historical junkie who is eager to see something a little different about the pivotal year of 1968.

[Ted Hunt · Rating 3 out of 5]

(I would give this book a 3.5 rating if I could.) This book has a lot to offer the reader, especially is one is interested in the 1968 negotiations concerning the War in Vietnam and its impact on the 1968 election. The author's purpose is to disprove the notion (only offered in the 21st century, I believe) that Richard Nixon got a message to the government of South Vietnam (through Chinese-American Claire Chennault) in the fall of 1968 encouraging them to make sure that there was no news coming out of the Paris Peace Conference so that the Humphrey campaign would not unveil an "October surprise" of impending peace that could swing a tightening race in Humphrey's favor. I think that the book succeeds in that mission. However, there were a number of inconsistencies in its presentation of this story. For one, the book claims, on a number of occasions, that the war made very little difference in how people voted in 1968. He points out, convincingly, the the platforms of the Nixon and Humphrey campaigns were quite similar when it came to describing their future policies concerning Southeast Asia. But it has been my observation that when an incumbent administration is running for reelection (and Humphrey, as V.P., was the representative of the Johnson Administration) that people will vote based on their sentiments concerning what that administration had already done, rather than on what it says it will do in the next four years. (I would say that Harris suffered from that phenomenon in 2024.). I also question why, if the war and the Paris peace negotiations were not crucial, did the book spend so much time describing, in excruciating detail, every little twist and turn in those negotiations? The author's contention is that the election results were about mainstream voters turning against the Great Society rather than any type of statement about the war. He presents some good evidence about that (most notably Wallace's appeal in the working class North). But at times the author's clear distaste for big government liberalism is front and center in his analysis. His description of the long arc of Wallace's career is interesting, although not groundbreaking at this point. At times, though, it seemed as if Nichter was trying to describe Wallace as a cornpone version of Donald Trump. I do not disagree that Wallace represented, in 1968, a turn that has culminated in a movement that has twice elected Trump. I do think that the book dismisses too easily Wallace's racist appeal. The author claims it was not important, and then he goes on to say that Wallace rejected Happy Chandler as a potential running mate because Chandler had been commissioner of baseball when Jackie Robinson integrated the Major Leagues, and that could turn off some white voters. That's not a racist consideration? In sum, I am pleased that I read the book, but it's not at the top of my books to recommend to others.

[Tyler · Rating 4 out of 5]

Luke Nichter, a professor at Chapman University and longtime scholar of Richard Nixon's career, has authored an intriguing analysis of the major actors in the 1968 U.S. presidential election. Some of the material was familiar to me: an explanation of why Lyndon Johnson chose not to run for reelection, the backgrounds of candidates Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey, and George Wallace, and Nixon's popularity on the basis of his message that he would restore "law and order" in the United States. Yet after conducting thorough research of archived documents and interviewing some key figures, Nichter also offers some provocative new insights. For instance, one might think that Johnson wanted Humphrey to win the election. Yet Nichter argues that the current president felt more comfortable with a Nixon win. This outcome would ensure that Johnson would remain the foremost authority in the Democratic Party while bringing the Vietnam War to an honorable end for the United States (by contrast, Humphrey had given a speech calling for an unconditional halt in U.S. bombing that Johnson did not want and was a departure from his policy). Nichter points to the famous evangelist Billy Graham as a person who relayed messages between Johnson and Nixon and allowed them to build trust with one another. The two men found that when they were not competing with each other on the ballot, they could find some common ground. Nichter also debunks the idea that Nixon tried to interfere with peace negotiations between the United States and the North Vietnamese during the campaign. Nixon only wanted to build support for Johnson's policy of requiring the North Vietnamese to meet certain conditions before the United States would implement a bombing halt, he claims, not sabotage any chance of peace. Some scholars will disagree with Nichter's conclusions. For instance, I remember reading John Farrell's biography of Nixon and this author drew a very different conclusion about Nixon's actions concerning the Vietnam War in 1968. But whether one agrees with Nichter or not, this book is a great reminder of how primary sources can upend conventional wisdom and advance new interpretations, even of events more than half a century in the past.

[Randal Wallace · Rating 5 out of 5]

Luke Nichter has written in this book "The Year that Broke Politics" arguably the most important book on the 1968 election that has been written to date. Thoroughly researched, and documented, with access to materials never before examined mainly from the archives of the Reverend Billy Graham, it sets much of the conventional wisdom on the election of 1968 and the infamous Chennault Affair at the end of the campaign on its head.

The book leads you through the election and the important role that Lyndon Johnson played behind the scenes , often at odds with the very advisors he had on the ground in Paris, who were working diligently, not so much for peace in Vietnam, but in a full scale effort to prevent a Richard Nixon Presidency.

The book paints riveting portraits of Lyndon Johnson, a President trying to preserve and enhance his legacy, a populous candidate in George Wallace who spoke for millions bluntly about the perceived mismanagement of Governmental policy at home and abroad, and the two leading Presidential Candidates, Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon who were deadlocked in a battle for the very future of the country, with the most divisive war in a century as the backdrop. It is a moment in history with the most parallels to now, with lessons we can certainly learn from for today and into the immediate future. I cannot recommend this book enough for the real story of that fateful year.

[Ronald Potter · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first line in the acknowledgements reads: “So much of what passes for history today is not based on rigorous research”. This sentiment goes to the heart of this book’s objective; intentional or not, many historians, academics and the media present subjective biographies/histories that are far from accurate. Luke Nichter provides a comprehensive and honest synopsis of that turbulent year 1968. Nichter has painstakingly dissected a plethora of research, much of it only recently released. This book is the ‘meat & potatoes’ of that presidential race; how it was affected by, and how it affected, everything dominating U.S. interests, both domestic policy and foreign affairs.
Accurate biographies of the main players (Lyndon Johnson, Bobby Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy, George Wallace and Richard Nixon) have been meticulously fleshed out to give a precise exposition of the 1968 election. Much of what has been accepted as factual is proved contrary when historical reality is presented. This book gives the reader a unique and blunt grasp of the people and events of that chaotic year. Many, if not most, of the myths accepted as truth for more than half a century are painstakingly and clearly exposed as false. This treatise is a must-read for the student of 20th century politics. 1968 was the most difficult year in American history and this book tells the whole story.

[Randall Russell · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book provides some interesting perspectives on the 1968 election, but based on what I've read elsewhere, I'm unsure how accurate those perspectives are. Also, this book felt to me like it was far too short (228 pages) to deal in detail with the three major compaigns - Johnson/Muskie/RFK/Humphrey, Nixon and Wallace - let alone the entire context of the Vietnam war, the increasing opposition to it, the assassinations of King, Malcolm X, and RFK, the urban riots following the King assassination, etc. So, this book for me wound up being not a full accounting of the campaign, not an analysis of 1968 in general or the politics of 1968, and not an in-depth accounting of all the major political figures involved in the 1968 election (see list above). Instead, it seems like a very selective accounting of the facts that fit the author's thesis - that Nixon and LBJ tacitly agreed that if Nixon supported Johnson's Vietnam policy and didn't criticize it, then Johnson would reframe from working to elect Humphrey, and that Nixon didn't in fact commit treason by interfering with the effort to negotiate a peace settlement with the North Vietnamese. So, for me, I thought this book was somewhat interesting, but flawed, and would only recommend it to someone who has a very strong interest in the politics of 1968.

[Jim Dobbins · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was an odd book for me. I expected a lot of political hardball between Johnson, Nixon, and Humphrey, and it delivered that, although maybe not as much as I had expected. And it went into great detail on the negotiations over trying to end the Vietnam war. I couldn't quite figure out why he went into that level of detail. And then toward the end, he goes into the accusations around what came to be known as the Chennault Affair, but doesn't dwell on them. Yet in the Appendix, that seems to be the primary subject.

The parallels with today's politics are interesting: Both Johnson and Biden dropping out of the race (although ginormous differences in how they did so); similarities between the demographic to whom both Wallace and Trump appealed. The beginning of the transition of the blue collar vote from Democrat to Republican in 1968, and what seems like the culmination of that transition in 2024 (or maybe actually in 2020). It does seem that 2024 is more like 1968, and vice versa, than either of them are like 1980 through 2012. Republican populism sort of skipped that long period, and landed in 2024.

Overall, it was good, but not amazingly revealing. It's an easy read, though, so no harm in reading it during this very interesting political season!

[Paul · Rating 1 out of 5]

Terrible book.

Basically Richard Nixon and George Wallace, not so bad as reported. This book puts a positive spin on Nixon, Wallace and Spiro Agnew while trashing Hubert Humphrey and others. Mentioning the Soviets offered Humphery money for his cash strapped campaign? Okay what was his response to them? You won’t find it in this book

This book has a rightward bent that is so obvious to anyone who is paying attention. A serious book about LBJ and how terrible his presidency and his flaws as a human being is something I would love to read but not by contrasting him with Nixon who according to this book was more loyal to LBJ than his own people. Nixon loyal? Ask H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman about how loyal Nixon could be.

George Wallace wasn’t “as racist as it seemed?” To African-Americans in Alabama he was clearly racist enough. Recanting his prior beliefs in the late 70’s had more to do with the political reality of the times than true regret.

Separate from the writing the narration of the audiobook was god awful. The worst audiobook experience I have had. They carted someone off the street to read…this…BOOK…in…a…weird…and…staccato…PACE…with…emphasis…put…IN…weird…PLACES.

Again, terrible book.

[Bank · Rating 4 out of 5]

Now , this is a fascinating book. The year 1968 was certainly one of the momentous in my lifetime with so much tragedy packed into such a small place. Nichols does a great job capturing the larger than life personalities in this year including LBJ, Nixon, Billy Graham, and Humphrey. And of course the tragedy of Bobby, Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, who were killed by assassination in the spring of that year.
LBJ announced he would not seek another term as president in March of 1968 , joining Harry Truman before him and Joseph Biden after him as the rare case of a president not seeking election. Stunned the world .
The interplay between LBJ , Nixon , Graham , and Humphrey is fascinating . As backdrop LBJ is engaged in frantic efforts to get traction in the Paris peace talks to end the war in Vietnam (which he had started back in 1964 after fabrication of the Gulf of Tonkin incident). Nixon is on his second try for the White House after losing to JFK in 1960 .
So much intrigue, backroom dealing , etc which I’ve never seen in print before . A very good book covering a very momentous period in our his.

[Bradley Messenger · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was an interesting look at the 1968 presidential race with a particular focus on Nixon’s political comeback and the personal/political dynamics of Nixon and Johnson’s as well as Johnson and Humphrey’s relationships. The value of this book comes from his analysis of these relationships.
Beyond that, a reader without prior knowledge of the late 1960s would wonder why this election “broke politics.” The racial/civil unrest is mainly cast in the background as a liability for Democrats and justification for Nixonian “law and order” rhetoric. The narrative is not dramatic and no sense of chaos invades the scene. It almost reads like politics inside the Palace.
He also tries to polish Wallace’s reputation: that he “struck a chord” with working class voters, that his earlier racism was for political expediency alone, and his most embarrassing moment was picking LaMay as VP (the description in the book manages to paint Wallace as more moderate because he was uncomfortable with LeMay’s unvarnished opinions).

Consider this book after more general histories of 1960s politics.

[Gretchen Hohmeyer · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this. I still think that Playing with Fire: The 1968 Election and the Transformation of American Politics was a better read, but this one had some new and interesting information that I found compelling. It is a much closer look at the relationship between LBJ and Nixon, and the true meaning and purpose of some of their actions. I'm not totally sure that it lives up to the title 'The Year That Broke Politics' but it is still an important, thorough, interesting look at an incredibly important election that carries a lot of baggage into today.

I will say, though, that someone did this audiobook narrator dirty. The audiobook is hard to listen to, with weird pauses and gaps in sentences. Also, people didn't tell him how to pronounce certain peoples' last names and that kept driving me up a wall. Read this one.

[Urey Patrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting and revealing look at the events and politics of the year 1968, and particularly the three men who ran for President (Nixon, Humphrey and Wallace) and the one man who did not – Lyndon Johnson. It was a year of multiple crises and traumatizing events, and Nichter looks back on it with focus and a dispassionate, objective eye that dispels much of the conventional mythology about the year, the events and the four principles involved. Once again, the national media took sides and distorted a lot of truths about the candidates and the events they were reacting to, most particularly Wallace, Nixon and LBJ. As I said above, interesting and fascinating – somewhat misleading in its title. I would not call it the year that broke politics, but it definitely was a year that changed politics in some significant and unprecedented ways.

[Steven · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book's too important to give less than 5 stars, but I take issue with a number of points the book makes.

The book challenges the conventional wisdom on LBJ's support for Humphrey and the Chennault Affair, using detailed and careful historical work. That's great, but it also then goes on to challenge much harder-to-refute claims, such as the importance of Vietnam on the general election and the racism of the Southern Strategy. Nixon largely gets a pass in this book because he believed the hard-core racists would to too hard to court, but then it downplays the racist implications of his dog whistle politics. If his anti-semitism is mentioned in the book, I missed it.

In the end, this book feels too often like Nixon apalogia. But it's still necessary for any study of the 68 election.

[Jonathan Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

We are told this year is very similar to 1968. I think this book shows how that is true in some ways, but not in others. This book was sailing to a solid 3.0 for me but I changed my rating after reading the last few chapters. For years, I have read that Nixon heavily influenced the Vietnamese peace talks (which fits nicely into most authors that he was a suspect guy). This book takes a second look at the evidence produced over the years and the new analysis is refreshing. The book also shines when it speaks about the relationship between LBJ and RN, which is really fascinating. My only critique is that I wished it had spoken more in depth about the deaths of MLK and RFK and the impact of these deaths on the elections and the decisions of the candidates.

[Glenn Richard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Then it was time to tour the White House. "Mrs. Johnson and I took the Nixons on a tour of the second-floor living quarters of the Executive Mansion. I was surprised to learn that it was the first time either of them had seen that part of the White House, in spite of the eight years they had spent in the Eisenhower administration," Johnson wrote in his memoirs. "It was a long visit, lasting nearly four hours," Lady Bird wrote in her diary, "proper, circumspect and cordial throughout. Lyndon, I thought was generous and rather fatherly." Nixon recalled the tour as a "room-by-room inspection of the entire mansion."
[The more history I read, the more I am shocked and amazed by the consistent way that Eisenhower was a prick towards Nixon, all the time.]

[Timothy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Perhaps the most important political history of 2023. Nichter's scholarship repudiates the historiograpic canard that Nixon undermined the Paris Peace talks by a careful review of key pieces of evidence that have been overlooked or suppressed by historians. The reader is invited to read this material which Nichter shares in an appendice. Furthermore, the author shows that the conservative shift happened in 1968 and was a causal agent in Nixon's election victory, not the result of his victory. Finally, in a brief comment he reminds readers of the importance of sifting through evidence rather than rushing to judgement.

[David Oliver · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent revisionist history challenging widely held views on Nixon’s role in peace talks ahead of the 1968 presidential election, on Johnson’s motivations for favoring Nixon over Humphrey and on George Wallace. Nichter delves into Billy Graham’s recently available memoirs and papers, exploring Graham’s the relationship with Nixon and Johnson and suggesting Graham’s role in cementing ties between N & J . Nichter’s research on Wallace surprised me; I had written off Wallace as a racist. It’s worth reading this book to learn that the story of Wallace and each of the major political figures from 1968 are more nuanced.

[Jim Milway · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well researched book on the 1968 election that drives toward the conclusion that Nixon did not secretly urge the South Vietnamese government to reject LBJ’s bombing halt just before the election. Nichter draws on various sources to refute the notion by other historians. Some interesting findings in the book - LBJ had decided well before his announcement that he was very likely not going to run again in 1968; LBJ favoured Nixon to succeed him; the election was not that close; and it marked the beginning of the long-term slide in the popularity of the Democratic party among blue-collar workers.

Recommended for those interested in US politics - even if you’re not a close follower.1212

[Ann Rolfs · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well the most interesting part of this book is the weasel Billy graham working behind the scenes to get Nixon elected. Also LBJ supporting Nixon over HHH after he basically stole hhh policy ideas and then used him (HHH) to get these policies through congress is appalling. Also Hhh feeling like he had to support lBJ Vietnam policy is distressing. Next read for me is something about pros and cons of staying bx leaving Vietnam

Also Abbie Hoffman and the yips-horrid human beings and they lead right to the present day.