Most of what I’ve heard about Tricky Dick has to do with Watergate. I’m grown up with a rather negative image of the man.
My father, the nation’s #1 Nixon groupie, says that Nixon did a lot of good things for the country, such as stopping the Vietnam war, and opening relations with China. He makes a persuasive argument, but my father also thinks George Bush and Dick Cheney are the greatest living Americans. I’ve learned to take his political opinions with a grain of salt.
So I’m asking you guys- overall, was Nixon a good president?
… seriously? Because Nixon spread the war to Cambodia, and the U.S. didn’t leave Vietnam until Ford was in office. I wasn’t alive when Nixon was in office, so I have trouble evaluating his entire tenure. Do achievements like relations with China and the creation of the EPA balance out Watergate and Vietnam? I doubt it.
He didn’t? Because my dad’s always going on about how Nixon ended the war just before he (my dad) was due to be drafted.
The U.S. had been slowly withdrawing troops throughout Nixon’s first term. They were mostly all gone by 1973. Nixon’s administration had tried to float the idea of resuming the bombing campaing against N. Vietnam if they violated the ceasefire, but Congress wouldn’t stand for anymore military action at that point.
Saigon only fell in April of 1975, though, which may be why the Ford reference. Nixon did start the push to end the war, but that was probably because of a lot of pressure.
I also heard recently that Nixon’s much ballyhooed opening of China actually didn’t amount to much. Not sure what’s the truth on that.
I saw a cartoon once featuring Nixon in hippy garb, holding a guitar, and sitting on a stool.
‘For those of you who think I’m supporting the Amendment changing the voting age to 18 in a cynical attempt to grab the Youth vote, I’ve written this song.’
In '68 the Dems ran on a platform of withdrawing from Vietnam quickly. Nixon ran on a platform of “Peace With Honor” which meant staying until South Vietnam was able to continue the fwar without our help. The war continued for Nixon’s entire term and expanded into Cambodia (a secret to the US public, but not presumably to the Cambodians whow were being bombed). The public, which was galvanized on pro-war/anti-war lines clearly saw Nixon as a hawk and Humphrey and McGovern as doves. Saying “Nixon ended the war” is disinjenuous.
As to China, Nixon was part of the Red-Scare brigade that helped isolate and demonize (rightly or wrongly) China, so in some ways opening up relations with China was just undoing what he helped do in the first place.
On the other hand, much good did occur during his term (EPA was formed) but I’d say that was a result of liberals in congress (in bith parties) rather than Nixon.
He was a first class prick.
Nixon was a bright man and a good president. The American people elected him to his second term in office by a landslide.
The mainstream media hated Nixon for decades. Probably because of his anti-communist stance and Alger Hiss. Once they felt they found a chink in his armor (Watergate), they pounded on it day after day after day for two years until finally they succeeded in driving him from office.
This is one of the reasons I’ve long hated the news media. (Another is that they are therefore responsible for our having Carter foist upon us. :D)
Had Kennedy done the same thing, we’d have never heard about it.
It’s sort of hilarious that you cite this as a show of popular support without mentioning Nixon’s efforts to rig the same election.
To the OP: Wiki has a pretty good article about Nixon’s presidency that will tell you much more about it than you will ever learn here.
Link.
Oh, but he did. That was Watergate, the chink in Nixon’s armor.
It’s true that the EPA was created under Nixon’s watch, and Nixon did open relations with China, but you have to weigh this against the criminal activities that were done by his staff, under his direction.
So Presidential staffers and their associates broke into the DNC headquarters to search their files and place wire taps on their phones in an effort to win the election.
The fact that the incompetent Watergate burglaries and the Nixon-directed attempted coverup were exposed by the press is a good thing. I think it’s hilarious that Conservatives claim to be the protectors of the constitution while arguing for a limit to the freedom of the press.
It should be noted that there is no evidence that Nixon did anything more than try to cover up for the people who were working on his behalf. That was wrong and a mistake, but it does not equate to his having tried to rig the election. His landslide win was as fair and square as any other presidential election.
With regard to the press, they did far more than expose it. They hammered on it day after day for two years until they were finally able to turn the electorate (and Nixon’s political base in Congress) against him.
And I haven’t heard of any conservatives lobbying for limits to press freedom. What we would like to see is the fair and objective coverage that the press has long alleged to present but which it has now pretty much abandoned all pretense of.
The responsible position for Nixon in '68 was not “Peace with Honor”, as this line encouraged Thieu to believe that he could count on Nixon’s continuing support if he rejected the Paris peace talks. There are those who claim that Nixon underscored that public but vague support with secret communications with Thieu, a charge which I believe, a least in part because I loathe the disgusting turdbucket with every fiber of my being. Hence, I think it is entirely fair to say that the war in Viet Nam would have been over much sooner had it not been for Richard Nixon. It is therefore entirely fair to say that the innocent lives lost and ruined in the years after are his responsibility. Not his alone, to be sure, but it would not have happened without him.
Comparative to that, Watergate is trivia, simply one more wipe of his ass with the Constitution. Thing is, it was entirely unnecessary, there was almost no chance Nixon would lose that election. But its telling of character, or the void where “character” might have been. He couldn’t just win, his craving for vindication and triumph was absolute, he couldn’t simply win, he had to crush.
Nixon, wielding behind-the-scenes influence that he had even out of office, sabotaged the Paris Peace Talks in 1968 to make sure the Vietnam War would still be raging as an issue for him to run on. You can read the story in Nixonland, by Rick Perlstein, which covers his life and career through 1972.
Nixon did have a certain integrity and commitment to public service, but his integrity never included honesty. He seems never, at any point in his career, to have had any sense that a politician is obliged to tell the public the truth; his attitude was always, “The public will be told what the public needs to be told.”
True – but that didn’t just happen. The President’s Men actively sabotaged the campaigns of all Democratic presidential contenders for 1972 save McGovern, on the justified assumption that McGovern would be easiest to beat. Again, you can read the story in Nixonland.
Nixon can hardly be said to have ended the war in Vietnam when he continued it throughout his presidency. Your Dad may be grateful that he wasn’t drafted and sent, but that didn’t end the war.
If you compare Nixon to our most recent Bush, Nixon comes out much better in the comparison. He was a hellavu lot smarter than W, having a perfect memory, despite being on medication much of the time and drunk too boot. He started the EPA and used wage and price controls to attempt to tackle inflation, with limited success.
His criminal activities seemed to consist of numerous break-ins, including Watergate and Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, a few international coups as well as assassinations. All in all, a world class Dick, but no Dick Cheney who did all those things plus torture on a regular basis and starting wars. Nixon didn’t start wars.
Cheney, in fact, was in Nixon’s Administration, and spent the rest of his career hoping to restore the Imperial Presidency, and finally got the chance. You can read that story in Takeover, by Charlie Savage.
I haven’t read that site yet, but my understanding of the history is that Kissenger played a big part in this. They wanted to create the impression to the U.S. public that Nixon would be able to solve the problem if elected; but if the problem were gone by the time of the election, they’d have little to run on. So the Paris Peace Talks had to fail, as far as the Nixon campaign was concerned. The war in Vietnam could easily have ended a lot sooner, but Nixon (and Kissenger) wanted the presidency.
Well, he did start the EPA.
He was at least highly resentful of opposing politicians who’d graduated from Ivy League schools, and at worst, paranoid of them–to the point that he felt justified in using “dirty tricks” against them to get what he wanted.
I think most people would agree that no matter how good your intentions are, circumventing the Constitution (especially if your office requires you to uphold it), is not a good way to govern.
:rolleyes: In America we have mainstream media, and RW media – and that’s all. There is no LW analogue to Fox News or the Washington Times – not the WaPo, not CNN, not even MSNBC where Keith Olbermann plays. LW outlets are limited to expressly political magazines like The Nation and radio networks such as Democracy Now! What more do you want?!
Well? Isn’t that exactly what they should have done?