For many people, Richard Nixon’s centennial is yet another excuse for trotting out Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein and reliving one of the great triumphs of 20th century liberalism. Richard Nixon was the bête noire of a generation of Democrats and the process by which he received what they believed were his just deserts seemed to vindicate every epithet that had ever been thrown at a man who first came to the country’s attention as a dedicated opponent of Communism. As Politico notes, unlike other former presidents who have their fans, the tribe of Nixonians is pretty small. That’s because Republicans as well as Democrats associate him primarily with Watergate, rendering any good or bad done during a long political career to the margins of history.
Yet there is more to his legacy than the tapes and the break-in. The more one thinks about his record as president the less there is to like. That’s because the 37th president is someone who teaches us that character is a fungible quality in politics. The lack of it not only allows a president to violate the law and to misuse his power. It also can lead to the abandonment of principle with regard to political issues. Though there is always the temptation for conservatives to take up the cudgels for anyone liberals hate (a factor that helped Nixon retain the loyalty of many Republicans during his career) he also ought to be remembered as an example of a Republican who betrayed the voters in a vain attempt to gain popularity. That’s a memory that ought to haunt contemporary conservatives who may believe the task of governing requires them to check their principles at the door to the Capitol.
Evaluating Nixon’s presidency is hard work for anyone who wants to talk about anything but Watergate. But as much as Nixon provided liberals with a target, it should also be remembered that he gave conservatives an example to avoid too. That’s because Nixon’s principle domestic achievements as president were important milestones in the descent of America into the malaise of big government liberalism.
While his creation of the Environmental Protection Agency is most often cited as an interesting historical irony, it was just one of many excursions into the creation of the superstate that conservatives of our own day are struggling to cut back. Nixon’s willingness to use his war powers was seen as an “imperial presidency” by his liberal opponents, but the same tendency led him to breach every principle of conservative governance to impose wage and price controls on the economy. That disastrous experiment testified to Nixon’s lack of any political principles as much as Watergate exposed his lack of a moral compass when it came to political espionage.
Nor were his betrayals limited to domestic policy. His trip to China and the establishment of ties with Beijing are rightly praised as a bold stroke that discomfited the Soviets. But the abandonment of his anti-Communist roots was not limited to that initiative. It was Nixon’s championing of détente with Moscow that kept the evil empire alive for longer that it should have. It was also primarily responsible for the dark decade of Soviet expansionism and proxy wars around the globe that followed. Far from being a foreign policy genius, as some would have it, his cynical realpolitik approach did as much damage to the world as his liberal economic schemes did at home.
Nixon isn’t the Republican who abandoned conservative ideas when he got personal control of the federal leviathan. But there is no better example of the consequences of such folly. Nixon’s presidency will always be seen as a tragic failure because of his resignation in disgrace. But even if we leave that aside, it ought to remain a toxic model for future generations of conservatives.
Tobin is too hard on Nixon. n nEnding the Vietnam war, the rapprochement with China, creating the conditions which in time forced the Soviets into perestroika and glasnost as they saw China coming up like gangbusters behind them, none of that was chopped liver. Nor was the 1973 resupply of the IDF that only happened when Nixon demanded that Secretary of Defense Schlessinger stop dragging his feet. n nThat detente prolonged the Cold War is a big supposition, especially if we consider the economic condition that actually ended the conflict. As Le Carre wrote, the Red Knight bled to death inside his armor. Was softening the climate in a time when the Soviets had tens of thousand of thermonuclear warheads, on hair triggers, aimed on this country really such an unforgivable mistake? n nAnd that the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency got the escalator to supergovt started is plain hysteria. America was severely polluted. Rivers were catching fire, the stench in traffic, especially behind buses in the 1960s was revolting. Flying into most large cities one could see a purple overhanging cloud. (Those are still there.) n n Tobin resents Nixon's pragmatism. Yes, that might be a euphemism for opportunism, but this Republic is all about elected politicians willing to bend and compromise for a deal. Our increasing inability in that respect is our present dilemma. Tricky Dick's wage and price controls were far less unprincipled opportunism than heeding public panic. Patrick Daniel Daniel Patrick Moynihan clearly gave bad advise but surely remained a principled man. n nI wonder if Tobin is as hard on Reagan for his happy go lucky swan dive into enormous debt, not to mention the Iran Contra affair.
Tobin IS too hard on Nixon, and nacllcan has written the reasons why in the comment above. n nAmerica has not had a true conservative President since Calvin Coolidge, yet it was Coolidge's sole SCOTUS appointment, Harlan Fiske Stone, who, as Chief Justice, helped FDR create the Imperial Presidency by breaking open the Commerce clause. n nWickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), set the precedent that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. n n
Tobin is WAY too hard on Nixon–so hard that it makes me wonder if he's too young to have lived through those halcyon days of the Watergate hearings. I'm not–and I can tell you that not in his wildest dreams would Richard Nixon ever have conceived of grabbing power like Barack Obama has been doing. n nin fact, seen against the framework of "the most transparent administration in history," Nixon doesn't look so bad!
There were many faces of Richard Nixon. Those of us who lived through the dark days of Watergate and saw the impact it had upon American character have reason enough to hold their noses at the mention of his name. Those who go back to his early days…what can one say, he was one of Papa Bushys Boys/Grunts, that is how Nixon got into politics. There still remains questions what role if any Nixon may have played in the JFK assassination. About 15 years ago, I read the lengthy introduction to a book written by a PHD in Public health about The AIDS Virus, called Emerging Viruses, packed with references. The author made a case for the same bunch who broke into Watergate, as the murderers. That includes E.Howard Hunt, aka Eduardo, Martinez etc; “The Plumbers”. According to the woman CIA operative, cuban, who tried to kill Fidel Castro at one point by poisoning him, testified under oath in a grand jury hearing that she and Hunt drove the decoy car down to Dallas the day before the shooting in Daley plaza, while the other car had a trunk load of rifles. She further testified that when they arrived, that evening, one of the guests who came over to their motel was none other than Jack Ruby, put that in your pipe and smoke it. Remember when Nixon was discussing Hunt’s demand for “hush money” and Nixon said, “…a million dollars, I can get a million dollars…”. What Hunt was threatening had not to do with Watergate, but Nixon’s role in The JFK thing, “The Bay of Pigs Thing”, was the code. All of that remains to be clearly proven.Did the same bunch also kill J. Edgar Hoover, as the book also alleges, with poison on his toilet items in his Mayland home, when Hoover threatened to expose Tricky Dick.
However, whatever you may think of him, President Richard M. Nixon saved Israel’s skin in 1973 with the arms lift. For that one act, given the fact that he overruled his advisers, (don’t forget Kissinger was a punk too and he has since admitted it, in so many ambiguous words)he deserves credit for that one, whatever his motives were.