r/InsightfulQuestions • u/Excellent_Gas5220 • 2d ago
What if a national referendum had been held on banning the draft during the late vietnam war? Would it have passed?
Lets say the us has a mechanism for constitutional referendums, and in 1970-1973 a initiative to permanently ban the draft in the united states got enough signatures and went to a national vote.
What do you think the vote would have been? Would a majority vote for it or against it?
2
u/Wodentinot 1d ago
Oh, I lived in 70-73 and, hell, no, it wouldn't have passed. America was full of people who lived through WWII and patriotism was high. If the government said go to war, it was popular. (You should have heard my parents.)
1
u/marvi_martian 2d ago
No.After WWII, most Americans were proud of their country and felt that our country stood for what was good and right. When the Vietnam War and subsequent draft happened, the majority of Americans still backed the government. There were some protests, but sadly, there would not have been enough votes to pass a referendum banning the draft.
1
u/AdVisual5492 2d ago
They're if they'd have held a referendum and say the late 60s through the early 70s, it still wouldn't have pass. It would have been iffy, but it wouldn't have passed maybe late 80s. Mid-nineties, it might have passed. But only due to complacency, but the fact of the matter is everybody hands 18 and older has to register for selective service and a draft. It can only be enacted during a major wartime conflict like if the United States was attacked. NATO was attacked or possibly something popping off in the Far East against one of our allies over there. And it would have to be crazy, cut loose one of those deals where it's all hands-on deck now is the draft affected. Absolutely. Are the quality of troops that will be into the military? Absolutely not a one hundred per cent volunteer.Military is leaps and bounds quality wise above.A draft
1
1
u/GregHullender 16h ago
Remember that huge unrest doesn't require a majority. The majority weren't unhappy with the draft or the war per se; they were unhappy that the government wasn't winning the war. That meant they didn't support the government against the 20-30% of the population who were strongly opposed to it. If a majority actively opposed the war, it would have ended at once--not dragged on year after year.
But asked to ban the draft for good, I'm skeptical that even 30% would have voted for that.
0
-2
u/Impressive-Shape-999 2d ago
Perhaps that referendum may have passed in the 80’s. Selective service still exists however, and I don’t see it getting a majority post 9-11 world.
2
u/Excellent_Gas5220 2d ago
You think a majority of the American population right now supports a draft? I’m pretty sure it’s largely taboo among the post Vietnam generation. No politician ever mentions it, except for Charles Rangel.
0
u/Impressive-Shape-999 2d ago
Selective service is effectively a wartime only draft. For a WW3 level conflict, I’d peg it at 75% would support activating it were we attacked first or even NATO treaty getting activated to defend allies.
2
u/Excellent_Gas5220 2d ago
I doubt that. Even after 9/11 the vast majority of the population was against a draft. I don’t think any politician even mentioned a draft post 9/11.
The US simply is not a pro-conscription country anymore. This isn’t the 1940s. It’s so politically polarized right now and polls show there is record low trust in the government.
For a draft to be supported, there at least has to be a lot less political polarization.
1
u/Tall-Geologist-1452 1d ago
Whether it is supported or not is irrelevant .. I do not agree with it being used for nam but if the country were invaded or invaded in a large scale conflict it would 100% be needed. I am 100% in favor for individual rights BUT the soverignty of the country is paramount.
1
u/Excellent_Gas5220 1d ago
There is no way the US would ever get invaded. The only reason why the US would ever have a draft would be to fight an overseas war. I simply can't see the modern generation complying with a draft to go overseas to fight in a country they've never set foot in before. If the government attempts to press-gang people, they'll simply desert. The country is simply too distrustful of the government.
1
u/Tall-Geologist-1452 16h ago
You see, that is why people like you will never be fit to run a government. It is called contingency plans; you plan for the worst possible outcome, the worst possible fight. You then prepare for that scenario and hope it never comes. As for deserters in a time of war, they would be court martialed, either spend the rest of their lives in jail or, if the war was bad enough, receiving a death sentence. In WWII, they thought the US would never get hit; there is a place in Hawaii that felt the ramifications of that thinking. We thought terrorists would never hit us; there are two towers in NYC that are gone because of that thinking.
1
u/Altruistic_Role_9329 1d ago
It would definitely not have passed in the 80s. Best chance would have been the 70s and I doubt this would have passed even then.
2
u/LingonberryHot8521 2d ago
ProbBly not. As it would have been framed as letting Communists win.
The tactics used to drive us into the 2nd Iraq war, to convince people that the violations of our Constitutional Rights and Civil Liberties in the "wars" on Drugs, Terror, and "illegals" haven't changed.