J. William Fulbright: A Bright Flame That Countered the Arrogance of Power

A photo of J. William Fulbright.

The Washington Rule, inspired by George Washington’s Farewell Address, outlines a list of sacrifices that must be made during wars: loss of family and friends, suffering veterans, governments operating in secrecy, blatant lies, and loss of natural resources. The desolation brought by these wars prompted the Washington Rule to advise countries to avoid foreign intervention. It was risky to intervene in other countries’ wars at the expense of the home country. So why did countries intervene? Because on the surface, it’s an advantageous business.

By the mid-1960s, the United States debated on whether to intervene in the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War was split between North and South, the North supported by Communist countries while anti-communist regimes such as the United States supported the South. President Lyndon B. Johnson predicted that North Vietnam was planning to “conquer the South, to defeat American power, and to extend the Asiatic dominion of Communism.” This underscored the domino theory that America was afraid of, which anticipated that the fall of South Vietnam to communism would spread communism to other parts of Asia.

While America was deep into the folds of the Vietnam War, few politicians addressed the logic of the Washington Rule, one of them being Senator James William Fulbright. He questioned America’s participation in the Vietnam War, pointing out the increasing deaths of American troops. A Democratic Senator from Arkansas and Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Fulbright was one of the first to prominently advocate for America’s dissociation from the war. Fulbright was John F. Kennedy’s first choice for Secretary of State in 1961, but due to the immense unpopularity during the resistance to American intervention, Fulbright never received the job. If Fulbright had left the Senate in 1961, he would have gone with a satisfactory reputation. Still, the following years did not ensure his honorable resignation despite his efforts to save millions of American lives.

When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee questioned if an end to the war was near, Fulbright suggested that the committee hold a series of hearings, called the Fulbright Hearings, to fully understand the situation. During the hearings, Fulbright realized that the military involvement in Vietnam detracted from the United States’ larger global interests in the Cold War, justifying that the war in Vietnam was merely a civil war and had no need for US involvement.

On February 17, 1966, the committee took testimony from Maxwell Taylor, a consultant to Johnson, and Secretary of State Dean Rusk, who both were in favor of the American alliance with South Vietnam. Rusk argued that America was preventing the expansion and extension of Communist domination by the use of force against weaker nations on the perimeter of Communist power.

Despite his opposition, Fulbright published The Arrogance of Power in response, where he highlighted his concerns about the Vietnam War. He reflected on the notion that America did not have any obligation to aid Vietnam and that American officials mistakenly equated sacrifice with power. His ideas supported the antiwar movement and addressed the necessity for the reevaluation of the legislative branch’s constitutional role in foreign relations.

When Fulbright advocated for the withdrawal from the Vietnam War, proponents of U.S. intervention claimed that Fulbright’s noncompliance with the war was tied to his racism. National Security Advisor Walt Rostow argued that Fulbright “simply thought it abhorrent that white men should have to spill their blood to safeguard the freedom and independence of yellow men.” These claims were made to dishevel his reputation among the political parties, as opposing parties advertised the idea of aiding Vietnam at the expense of American welfare.

Fulbright was not only met with dissent among his opposition but also among his fellow Democrats, further alienating him. As Fulbright announced his objection to the aggressive foreign policy of Johnson, his relationship with Johnson, who had once been an ally, soured greatly. Thus, after the events of the Vietnam War, his standing in the Democratic Party diminished due to his decisions regarding the war.

Even with these allegations, Fulbright carried on with his advocacy for the American withdrawal from the Vietnam War by arranging secret internal reports on the affairs of Vietnam. The reports, called the Pentagon Papers, were a stepping stone to the report in 1969 that confirmed the deaths of nearly thirty thousand American soldiers in the war. These alarming numbers made ripples in the political sphere, raising anti-war forces within the country to rally against the war.

With Fulbright’s efforts, the war policy approval rates dropped from 63% to 49%, American losses were highlighted, and America eventually withdrew from Vietnam due to internal political and social pressure on March 29, 1973. Despite saving numerous American lives, Fulbright’s vocal support for withdrawing American troops before the general public supported the idea subjected him to significant backlash, tarnishing his political career.

Although marred by political controversy, his legacy lives on through the Fulbright Program. The program supports students today with the opportunity to research, exchange ideas, and expand knowledge in various fields. This reflects his own ability to research and understand the full extent of the Vietnam War through the Fulbright Hearings, exchange ideas by listening to other testimonials, and expand knowledge by observing the war before forming a definite opinion. Fulbright’s voice played a major role in reducing American losses and in returning political stability to America.