Nixon's certainly a fascinating figure, but respecting him? That's a bit of a stretch for me. Pitiable, maybe. Sympathetic, to an extent; he clearly had a rough life growing up that undoubtedly shaped him into what he became. But worthy of respect? I wouldn't necessarily say so.
In terms of actual policies, his presidency wasn't bad. His detente with China and Russia, and his arms limitation treaties, were admirable and certainly had long-term benefits, especially the former. His ending the Vietnam War (albeit belatedly) the right thing to do; to be honest I don't see how anyone could have navigated their way out of that mess better than Nixon did, given the state of the war when he took office. He actually implemented more affirmative action and civil rights than his predecessors, who had merely made them law; he had created the EPA and did more for the environment than any Republican President since Teddy Roosevelt. So, taking the man out of the picture, I could understand the revisionist view of history that sees him as a good president. Even on a personal level, he has admirable traits, lifting himself up by his bootstraps to become a business and political success, he was a devoted father and family man, and history has largely vindicated him at least on Alger Hiss, if not his general stance on Communist subversion.
But the reason he is justly vilified is what he did while in office and what he ultimately stood for. He turned the Presidency into a laughing stock; he acted like a Mafia chieftain rather than the leader of the free world, stonewalling and doing everything he could to obstruct justice when all it would have taken to fix the situation was to admit he had done wrong and apologized. The crime itself wasn't terribly important; the cover-up and its fall-out were the important part. It would be the better part of a decade before people got any trust back in their government, and who can blame them after Watergate? Coupling that with his complete lack of scruples, lack of self-awareness and rampaging ego, I think he's fully deserving of his reputation. He disgraced the Presidency, disgraced the US government and disgarced himself, and for that reason if nothing else he deserves to be on a short list of worst Presidents ever.
Let's kick some ICE!
reply
share
pninson
16 years ago
It's possible to respect Nixon's ability and accomplishments, while at the same time acknowledging his slimy campaigns for Congress and the Senate, his enthusiastic participation in HUAC and his pursuit of Alger Hiss, and of course his criminal behavior in the Watergate cover-up. Nixon had the 1972 election locked up; McGovern was never going to appeal to Middle America, and campaigned ineptly, but Nixon still felt he had to stack the deck. His dishonesty about the war in Vietnam was as bad or worse than Lyndon Johnson's. The war lost popular support largely because people found out they were being lied to (by both LBJ and Nixon).
Like many people, Nixon thought he had high principles, but he took everything personally and descended into a kind of madness which destroyed his presidency. I've read several books about him, and I think the film portrays the essence of this.
I voted for the first time in 1972, and I was thrilled to be able to vote against this man, although I knew he was a lock for re-election. Many years later, I would still never vote for him as he was not trustworthy. He inherited a country that was sharply divided but instead of bringing us together, he fanned the flames of polarization and helped amplify the divisions. Reading this thread is enough to show you that basically nothing has changed in the last forty years. We're still having the same argument.
We report, you decide; but we decide what to report.
reply
share
Mercader79
15 years ago
Clearly he wasn't without any redeeming features yet obviously the main impression is of a deeply flawed, paranoid neurotic who had the capacity for greatness but was generally temprementally unsuited to high office.
I'm always amazed how many people bend over backwards to ignore these things and try to claim he was "the greatest leader ever" etc.
He wasn't!
reply
share
Hancock_the_Superb
15 years ago
Like many people, Nixon thought he had high principles, but he took everything personally and descended into a kind of madness which destroyed his presidency. I've read several books about him, and I think the film portrays the essence of this.
I'm not even sure how much I agree with this. I don't doubt that Nixon had personal standards and principles he believed in, but most everything he engaged in and advocated as a politician seemed to be for the sake of personal advancement and cold-blooded pragmatism. I'm of the school of thought that Nixon knew what he was doing was wrong, or at best shady, but just didn't care.
Reading this thread is enough to show you that basically nothing has changed in the last forty years.
Except that gays are not engaging in violent rioting, pro- and anti-war people are not fighting each other in the streets, and politicians and other leaders aren't getting gunned down left and right by madmen. So yeah, I'd say that quite a bit has changed.
"I do NOT want your tawdry tales of office lust infecting my newsroom!"
reply
share