Tuesday, November 13, 2007
The Second Coming?
Richard Nixon was a catastrophic president. In cocktail party society in Manhattan, I often hear bitter commentary from the upper west side liberal crowd (can you believe that's where I live?) questioning how it is possible that, notwithstanding his criminal behavior and his humiliating resignation, the Republican Party has still managed to secure the Presidency for 22 of the 34 years (through 2008) since Nixon's departure from public life.
What made Nixon such a disaster? People will disagree on a number of these assertions, but let me offer a few:
1) Economic policy - Nixon first devalued the dollar, delinking it from gold, therefore repudiating the Bretton Woods agreement formed after World War II. This in part helped to trigger a declining dollar and inflation, which he tried to manage centrally by imposing wage and price controls. This is a small snippet of the economic policies the Nixon Administration embraced. Net result -- a very tough recession in 1974, poorly functioning markets and a general disdain for free market capitalism. He also did nothing to reduce what were exceptionally high marginal tax rates. In the end, Nixon's domestic and economic policies were not much different than those of LBJ or Hubert Humphrey.
2) Foreign Policy - Nixon is often credited with being a brilliant Cold War strategist. Well, maybe. Maybe not. Nixon certainly had impressive anti-communist credentials given his 1950's posture viz. chasing down internal commies. On the other hand, he launched the SALT agreements, which were oriented towards co-existence with Soviet style communism. With Kissinger as his chief foreign policy architect, Nixon pretty much supported any nasty regime which didn't happen to be on the Soviet payroll. There was simply no moral component to Nixonian foreign policy. I think this was not so great, frankly. Going to China was a brilliant strategic gambit, but it wasn't oriented toward introducing freedom and human rights to China. It was oriented towards splitting The 2 communist allies. Reagan's and Shultz's departure from Nixon/Kissinger style policy was an important shift which highlighted Soviet immorality, buttressing Pope John Paul II's similar effort to undermine the Soviet Union. Nixonian policy was funadamentally limited and flawed, due to its capacity to countenance permanent allegiance with repugnant regimes.
3) Of course, much has been written of Nixon's personality flaws, his paranoia, his latent bigotries. And it was his related corruption that undid him and certified not just a flawed but a simply disastrous presidency.
We also know that Nixon was completely uninspiring. Though clearly a smart and agile mind, he was a singularly unimpressive speaker and lacked any charisma. He was almost a cartoonish figure, and exceedingly easy to lampoon. For those who remember Rich Little, he did a hilarious Nixon immitation which captured the guy perfectly. Imagine a US President standing beore you and saying..."I am not a crook."
So who reminds me of Richard Nixon as we head into 2008? Who is blessed with a great and agule mind, yet offers red flags regarding corruption -- be it Tyson Foods and commodities trading, or Vince Foster, or Whitewater, or Mr. Hsu? Who speaks of vast political conspiracies against them? Who is a somnolent speaker? Who might offer us an interesting and deadly combination of central economic planning (think healthcare) and indifference to increasing taxes? And who might be a foreign policy "realist", carefully withdrawing from Iraq and straddling the fence on Iran?
If you ask me, Romney reminds me of Reagan, Giuliani reminds me of the other (Bill) Clinton, and Hillary makes me think of tricky Dick. Just sayin'.
13 Comments:
By 
Purple Avenger, at
Tue Nov 13, 04:31:00 PM:
In the end, Nixon's domestic and economic policies were not much different than those of LBJ or Hubert Humphrey.
Not surprising given the makeup of the congress he had to work with. The vast majority of the public assigns to presidents far more power than they have in reality.
By 
, at
Tue Nov 13, 06:09:00 PM:
>The vast majority of the public assigns to presidents far more power than they have in reality.
Truer words were ne'er spoke, PA. I'm reminded of all the "Bush didn't get bin Ladin!" accusations, which, if you take the words at face value, appears that they're actually expecting President Bush to grab an M-16 and parachute into Afghanistan.
But, by the same token, everyone talks as if 'universal' health care is a given if the Hillarybeast takes office, yet that's hardly so. Ditto "immediately" extracting our troops from Iraq should any of the Dems win. There's more to it than just the stroke of a pen.
That's one thing that was very fresh and revealing in the Clancy books; how little power the president really has. He can suggest and recommend all day long, and they're certainly taken seriously, but, in the final analysis, they're still just suggestions and recommendations.
So, where were we? Ah, yes, another sad sufferer from the dreaded CDS. This time, he took the back-door approach, spending endless paragraphs and bullet points to convince us of what a heinous person Nixon had been, only to turn around and compare him to you-know-who.
On the other hand, no one over at Maggie's Farm has erupted in a case of CDS for days now, so I guess we were due.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Nov 13, 07:30:00 PM:
Propping up otherwise odious foreign governments to keep them out of the Soviet sphere did not begin with Nixon, nor end with Ford.
President Nixon is held in fairly high esteem among international relations folks. While not all agree with his philosophies, he and his cohorts (such as Kissinger) knew what they were about internationally.
"There was simply no moral component to Nixonian foreign policy."
That is the essence of power politics, and when it's a life or death struggle (as the Cold War was) you'd better believe that that's how you should play.
By Ray, at
Tue Nov 13, 07:38:00 PM:
Foreign policywise, Nixon was in a very bad spot, and maneuvered us out of it quite well. You take far more desperate measures when your country is falling apart domestically, and the enemy is on the march, than you do when you're leading a domestic turnaround and the enemy is facing internal collapse.
And ... Romney to Reagan? That seems rather a gratuitous comparison from where I sit. Ronald Reagan understood the soul of America in a way that maybe one statesman a generation can catch. I've yet to see any sign of that from Romney.
By , at
Tue Nov 13, 09:12:00 PM:
There are major differences. The other Clinton is much, much more corrupt. Not even close. And the other major difference is how the press crucified Nixon but gives the Big H a pass on everything, unless Mohammad Obama brings it up. Once Mohammad is out of the way, completely free press passes start over.
By Fritz, at
Tue Nov 13, 09:43:00 PM:
ray: "Ronald Reagan understood the soul of America in a way that maybe one statesman a generation can catch."
Naah. Nixon won with the race-baiting "Southern Strategy" too. "States Rights" hoooo!
CP: your comparison of HRC to Nixon is ludicrous on its face because Hillary was cleared of all wrongdoing in all the non-trivial scandals that you mentioned. Well, I guess when you suffer from CDS, rampant confirmation bias is an unavoidable symptom.
dr merc: "appears that they're actually expecting President Bush to grab an M-16 and parachute into Afghanistan."
Didn't stop him from striking those great "Mission Accomplished" flight-suit-on-aircraft-carrier poses, now did it?
By , at
Tue Nov 13, 09:50:00 PM:
Armchair quarterbacking. The country voted for him, and he spoke to the soul of the then American electorate. I'm all for the rascist president if it's America for Americans first. Secure my god darned border, and clean up the trash that affect my right to liberty and relative peace from rat bastards, be they from Mexico or elsewhere.
By , at
Wed Nov 14, 12:49:00 AM:
Americas worse predent was JIMMY CARTER and BILL CLINTON its just they had all those wussietards listening to their blabber
By , at
Wed Nov 14, 01:36:00 AM:
I can't stand Romney. He's the conssumate career politician, and inspires absolutely no confidence in me whatsoever. That comment about how his sons are doing their part by helping him get elected really betrays a lot about his (and a lot of other neocons') mindset imo.
McCain should win, but probably has no shot. Too "intense". You have to think there's no way an Abraham Lincoln could get elected in this day and age; he wans't very photogenic and the beard would've made for some uncomfortable baby-kissing.
By honestpartisan, at
Wed Nov 14, 07:26:00 AM:
Hey, there are worse places to live than the Upper West Side. The Upper East Side comes to mind.
By , at
Wed Nov 14, 10:19:00 AM:
Having spent a decade living on the upper west side, I can understand how outnumbered you are!
Jimmy Carter was obviously in a different league: the league of worst leaders in human history.
I also compare Hillary to Nixon, in her tendancies anyway for anger, manipulation, and in her cynical views of the electorate. If she's elected it'll be despite her lack of amenable personal qualities and warmth, and be because she is believed to be the "least bad" choice. Much like Nixon.
If she's elected we can expect to see FBI files in the White House again, destruction of National Archive records again, political prosecutions again, and an anything-for-money morality. Again.
Perhaps she shares some Nixonian tendancies, but the result will be uglier.
Fortunately, we can trust the people: she'll not win.
By Fritz, at
Wed Nov 14, 10:30:00 AM:
"Hey, there are worse places to live than the Upper West Side. The Upper East Side comes to mind."
So go live in Possum Trot, Alabama. I hear land, housing, and the cost of living are pretty cheap there. You won't be missed!
By , at
Sat Nov 17, 08:30:00 PM:
In Tim Russert's book "Big Russ" Russert talks about the years he worked for Daniel Patrick Moynihan as his chief of staff. Moynihan, a devout Democrat had served in Nixon's cabinet. In that book Moynihan used to brag about how Nixon was really more liberal then he was given credit. His domestic spending at that time even topped LBJ's. Which at the time surprised the young Russert.
Lastly, so when a kid is named Fritz - is automatically beat up? Hence the anger?
