Watched it again, tonight, for the second time in a month.
Compared to Nixon, Trump is a lost child, an empty clown, completely out of his depth outside "reality TV".
But anyway.
I admire Lincoln almost unreservedly for his strength of character, for his ability to trust himself, the little nobody from nowhere, surrounded by his cabinet of people vastly his social superiors, and who all knew it.
Nixon, also from the little people from nowhere, was filled with resentment all his life of the big people all around him who looked down on him.
Lincoln actually incorporated his backwoods origins into his political persona, and his devotion to his singular conviction and his singular mission enabled him to keep on, keep on, until victory.
His singular conviction that dominated his entire political life, that slavery ought to be crushed and abolished throughout the entire United States of America, forever.
His conviction and his knowledge that in the end he could only trust himself made him a man prepared throughout those terrible years of war to do the right thing at the moment to get the best result possible at that moment.
He had, for instance, in the beginning, to be ready to stop the war and accept the seceded states back into the Union immediately with no change at all to the status of slavery.
But in a few short years he could and did attack slavery, emancipating all slaves in those states still in rebellion, knowing that now he could do it.
And then in victory he could insist that slavery was over, that it be forever abolished throughout the Union by constitutional amendment.
What a hero he was.
He was as courageous a brilliant nobody with a mission as was Joan of Arc, sent by God himself to save France.
So much smaller was Nixon in that regard, compared to him.
Despite his many and real achievements.
Update.
Between the two of them, LBJ and Nixon sent the South into the Republican Party and out of the Democratic Party.
That made the latter less and the former more sympathetic to racism, shifting the Klansmen, hidden and overt, from the one party to the other.
It also made the Dems more consistently liberal and the GOP more consistently conservative, especially in all things culture war-ish.
Evangelicals and gun rights, you know.
So the two presidents together set the stage for our politics becoming much more polarized and each party more homogeneous as to values and agenda.
Showing posts with label Nixon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nixon. Show all posts
Monday, July 6, 2020
Saturday, June 27, 2020
It is no accident . . .
. . . that Frost/Nixon is now on Netflix.
I had forgotten what a swine Nixon was in ways tawdry and contemptible as well as larger and more frightening.
He and Trump are much of a muchness, the key differences being that Nixon was by far much better informed, much smarter, took his job a lot more seriously, and did it way, way better.
He really was a loyal man who wanted to leave America better off and stronger, within the limits of his insuperable petty vindictiveness and consuming ambition.
Trump would trash America in a fit of pique - if he hasn't already - and otherwise could not care less about the country or his actual job as president.
He is useless or worse in pretty much all respects, and has been since day one.
I had forgotten what a swine Nixon was in ways tawdry and contemptible as well as larger and more frightening.
He and Trump are much of a muchness, the key differences being that Nixon was by far much better informed, much smarter, took his job a lot more seriously, and did it way, way better.
He really was a loyal man who wanted to leave America better off and stronger, within the limits of his insuperable petty vindictiveness and consuming ambition.
Trump would trash America in a fit of pique - if he hasn't already - and otherwise could not care less about the country or his actual job as president.
He is useless or worse in pretty much all respects, and has been since day one.
Tuesday, April 23, 2019
Trump v Nixon
Nixon was more successful getting his cabinet, his VP, and other officials to act as his flunkies and even help out with White House lawlessness.
But less successful in keeping the unwavering support of Republicans in the congress.
But less successful in keeping the unwavering support of Republicans in the congress.
Monday, April 22, 2019
Trump demands what Nixon had in spades
His AG, his White House Counsel, his VP, everybody was a willing Mafia stooge to Nixon's Mafia don.
But when all the dirt came out they mostly went to prison and he didn't, and that lesson may not have been lost on people who need to not lose it.
But when all the dirt came out they mostly went to prison and he didn't, and that lesson may not have been lost on people who need to not lose it.
Sunday, April 21, 2019
Nixon's last days in the White House
Watching a Tricky Dick episode about Nixon blaming the press for its reports as he went for weeks lying about the tapes, refusing to hand them over, after the Saturday Night Massacre.
The Supremes told him 8-0 that he had to hand over the tapes.
Some of today's Republicans are on record as holding that decision was an error and should be overturned, though I forget on what grounds.
It is a daunting question how the judges on today's court would have decided the matter.
Anyway, the next day the house began to put together impeachment articles.
Days later Nixon released a transcript of the "smoking gun" tape of Nixon ordering a call to the FBI to tell them to stop investigating the Watergate break in.
That convinced some of his last Republican defenders he was guilty of obstruction of justice and should be impeached.
It is interesting to reflect that many of today's Republicans, perhaps including Barr and certainly including Kavanaugh, accept a strong theory of the unitary executive according to which the president cannot commit obstruction of justice via exercise of his legitimate, constitutional authority, and that every executive office, department, or employee works for him and at his pleasure.
So the Saturday Night Massacre was not obstruction of justice, and neither was calling the FBI to tell them to drop their investigation of the Watergate break in.
Nixon went on TV on August 8th and resigned effective at noon the 9th.
He admitted no guilt, no involvement in the coverup.
So ended a term won by the greatest popular vote victory in American history.
In a later interview he said his resignation was the only apology there was going to be.
More than two years from the break in to the resignation.
If the house impeaches Trump the senate Republicans will not ask him to resign and not convict, despite the ocean of evidence we already swim in.
The Supremes told him 8-0 that he had to hand over the tapes.
Some of today's Republicans are on record as holding that decision was an error and should be overturned, though I forget on what grounds.
It is a daunting question how the judges on today's court would have decided the matter.
Anyway, the next day the house began to put together impeachment articles.
Days later Nixon released a transcript of the "smoking gun" tape of Nixon ordering a call to the FBI to tell them to stop investigating the Watergate break in.
That convinced some of his last Republican defenders he was guilty of obstruction of justice and should be impeached.
It is interesting to reflect that many of today's Republicans, perhaps including Barr and certainly including Kavanaugh, accept a strong theory of the unitary executive according to which the president cannot commit obstruction of justice via exercise of his legitimate, constitutional authority, and that every executive office, department, or employee works for him and at his pleasure.
So the Saturday Night Massacre was not obstruction of justice, and neither was calling the FBI to tell them to drop their investigation of the Watergate break in.
Nixon went on TV on August 8th and resigned effective at noon the 9th.
He admitted no guilt, no involvement in the coverup.
So ended a term won by the greatest popular vote victory in American history.
In a later interview he said his resignation was the only apology there was going to be.
More than two years from the break in to the resignation.
If the house impeaches Trump the senate Republicans will not ask him to resign and not convict, despite the ocean of evidence we already swim in.
Friday, April 19, 2019
The tyrant in his lair. Or the boss from hell.
A Portrait of the White House and Its Culture of Dishonesty
Sarah Huckabee Sanders, according to the Mueller report.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders, then the president’s deputy press secretary, told reporters that the White House had talked to “countless members of the F.B.I.” who supported the decision to fire the director — but she later admitted to investigators that it was not true.
Her comment, she said, was “a slip of the tongue” made “in the heat of the moment” and not founded on anything.
Speaking of Bozo's nature, this is classic mob boss, or classic Nixon (same, same).
Sarah Huckabee Sanders, according to the Mueller report.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders, then the president’s deputy press secretary, told reporters that the White House had talked to “countless members of the F.B.I.” who supported the decision to fire the director — but she later admitted to investigators that it was not true.
Her comment, she said, was “a slip of the tongue” made “in the heat of the moment” and not founded on anything.
Speaking of Bozo's nature, this is classic mob boss, or classic Nixon (same, same).
From the same Times story.
But he [the Duce] did not give up trying to regain control of the investigation, calling Mr. Sessions at home to ask if he would “unrecuse” himself and direct the Justice Department to prosecute Mrs. Clinton.
Mr. Sessions refused.
Abuse of power, much?
Speaking of Nixon and Watergate, already we are hearing from Trump loyalists the "they're all like that; they all do it" defense so often trotted out in defense of Nixon with his enemies list and his use of officials to harass and punish them, his abuses of power.
Differences between the two.
Nixon was purposive; he was not a pathological liar.
Nixon was not a pussy-hound.
Nixon was not a serial bankrupt.
Nixon was a knowledgeable and capable politician and even statesman.
Nixon did not want to smash the state and loved the republic; Trump would be a tyrant without a second's hesitation or thought, if he could.
He already is that in his heart; he has the soul of a tyrant. That speaks to desire.
And the mind of one. That speaks to belief.
Similarities.
Vindictive, spiteful, criminally self-serving, the mentality of a beleaguered crime boss demanding personal loyalty from staff and cabinet members functioning as henchmen and tools for his crimes.
With the investigation bearing down on him, Mr. Trump wanted to make sure Mr. Sessions remained in charge at the Justice Department, and he asked Mr. McGahn to tell the attorney general not to recuse himself because of his work on the Trump campaign.
Mr. McGahn tried to head off a recusal by calling the attorney general three times, but Mr. Sessions announced his recusal that afternoon.
Mr. Trump was furious. Summoning Mr. McGahn to the Oval Office the next day, he said, “I don’t have a lawyer,” and added that he wished Roy Cohn, the famed bare-knuckled attorney who once worked for him in New York, was still his lawyer.
Mr. Trump said that Robert F. Kennedy protected John F. Kennedy, and Eric H. Holder Jr. protected Barack Obama.
“You’re telling me that Bobby and Jack didn’t talk about investigations?” he demanded.
“Or Obama didn’t tell Eric Holder who to investigate?”
Mr. Trump screamed at Mr. McGahn about how weak Mr. Sessions was, and Stephen K. Bannon, then the president’s chief strategist, thought he was as mad as he had ever seen him.
. . . .
In January 2018, The Times reported about the president’s June 2017 effort to have Mr. Mueller fired.
A livid Mr. Trump pressed Mr. McGahn to publicly rebut the story, but he would not because the article accurately reported the president’s desires.
Mr. Trump insisted that Mr. McGahn deny it.
“If he doesn’t write a letter, then maybe I’ll have to get rid of him,” the president said, or something to that effect.
Monday, April 8, 2019
Watching Tricky Dick
Amazing the abuses of power he committed, the actual crimes he urged, to win an election he won in a crushing landslide, anyway.
He won with not quite 61% of the vote and 520 EC votes to 17 for McGovern, who carried only Massachusetts and DC.
The polls always showed him with pretty strongly net positive approval ratings until well into 1973, when the Watergate scandal emerged.
Even at the end of his presidency he may have felt the war could have been won, that he was forced to back away from it by politicians at home.
He may have felt there was some price he could have imposed on the North and the VC that would have been, for them, too high.
He underestimated their willingness to "bear any burden, pay any price".
A willingness that meant the US could not win without genocidal, or nearly genocidal measures.
And that was a price too high for large parts of the American classe politique, who did in fact force him to back away, though lots of Americans would have been OK with it.
Although no doubt another reason for rejection of the war was utter disbelief in the domino theory according to which the loss of South Vietnam (a first domino) would ultimately threaten the loss of California (the last).
In fact, no further dominos fell in the path leading from Southeast Asia to North America, or indeed to anywhere, at all.
He won with not quite 61% of the vote and 520 EC votes to 17 for McGovern, who carried only Massachusetts and DC.
The polls always showed him with pretty strongly net positive approval ratings until well into 1973, when the Watergate scandal emerged.
Even at the end of his presidency he may have felt the war could have been won, that he was forced to back away from it by politicians at home.
He may have felt there was some price he could have imposed on the North and the VC that would have been, for them, too high.
He underestimated their willingness to "bear any burden, pay any price".
A willingness that meant the US could not win without genocidal, or nearly genocidal measures.
And that was a price too high for large parts of the American classe politique, who did in fact force him to back away, though lots of Americans would have been OK with it.
Although no doubt another reason for rejection of the war was utter disbelief in the domino theory according to which the loss of South Vietnam (a first domino) would ultimately threaten the loss of California (the last).
In fact, no further dominos fell in the path leading from Southeast Asia to North America, or indeed to anywhere, at all.
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Watching "Tricky Dick"
Campaign of 68, he just told an audience his administration would end the war within a year of taking office.
I did not remember that.
Too young to vote that year, by the next election I was over 21 and the voting age had been dropped to 18.
The war dragged on until 1975.
I did not remember that.
Too young to vote that year, by the next election I was over 21 and the voting age had been dropped to 18.
The war dragged on until 1975.
Monday, March 18, 2019
Tricky Dick
The title says it all.
This is maybe a little too much like an official Democratic three minutes hate, very well done.
Menacing music, a narrator who points out the sins of "win by any means necessary" Nixon but says not a word about the Democrats behind the lies that provoked Nixon's Checkers speech, all that sort of thing.
Interestingly, while Hiss's perjury conviction is reported as a win for Nixon, there is no mention of Whittaker Chambers, Elizabeth Bentley, and the actual evidence proving beyond doubt that Alger Hiss was guilty not only of perjury but also of espionage for the Soviet Union.
Hiss's patron had been Dean Acheson, the man whose blunder in publicly drawing the line of "containment" caused the Korean War.
All the same, the thing uses nothing but actual footage from back in the day with news commentary from then.
A great history lesson for those who did not live through it.
This is maybe a little too much like an official Democratic three minutes hate, very well done.
Menacing music, a narrator who points out the sins of "win by any means necessary" Nixon but says not a word about the Democrats behind the lies that provoked Nixon's Checkers speech, all that sort of thing.
Interestingly, while Hiss's perjury conviction is reported as a win for Nixon, there is no mention of Whittaker Chambers, Elizabeth Bentley, and the actual evidence proving beyond doubt that Alger Hiss was guilty not only of perjury but also of espionage for the Soviet Union.
Hiss's patron had been Dean Acheson, the man whose blunder in publicly drawing the line of "containment" caused the Korean War.
All the same, the thing uses nothing but actual footage from back in the day with news commentary from then.
A great history lesson for those who did not live through it.
Saturday, December 8, 2018
The argument from national security
The president must with impunity be able to ignore the law and perhaps even the constitution to order or empower people to commit what are, or otherwise would be, crimes in order to protect the United States.
He must be able to afford them, too, complete impunity.
And it is equally necessary no one can second guess him or, for that matter, them, unless on his authority.
That position is common in popular culture and entertainment, and was widely ventilated by Republicans during GW's administration, mostly, but not only, in defense of torture in the aftermath of 9/11.
You heard and read it from many sources on the right: "The constitution is not a suicide pact."
But in truth the position and the established practice are as old as the Cold War, at least.
Trump is living proof it's a bad idea.
Powers others used in furtherance of national security he has likely used and will use in connection with crimes committed by cronies, family members, and perhaps even himself that in no way served or were intended to serve our national security.
It is not a good idea to nod our heads and say, yes, Nixon was right: if the president does it, that means it's not illegal.
Nixon, his own conduct an egregious proof of the stupidity of that position.
I hate to be banal but power corrupts.
Thoughts that come to mind watching an episode of Hawaii Five O.
He must be able to afford them, too, complete impunity.
And it is equally necessary no one can second guess him or, for that matter, them, unless on his authority.
That position is common in popular culture and entertainment, and was widely ventilated by Republicans during GW's administration, mostly, but not only, in defense of torture in the aftermath of 9/11.
You heard and read it from many sources on the right: "The constitution is not a suicide pact."
But in truth the position and the established practice are as old as the Cold War, at least.
Trump is living proof it's a bad idea.
Powers others used in furtherance of national security he has likely used and will use in connection with crimes committed by cronies, family members, and perhaps even himself that in no way served or were intended to serve our national security.
It is not a good idea to nod our heads and say, yes, Nixon was right: if the president does it, that means it's not illegal.
Nixon, his own conduct an egregious proof of the stupidity of that position.
I hate to be banal but power corrupts.
Thoughts that come to mind watching an episode of Hawaii Five O.
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
David Brooks' dx and rx
It's not too late!
Not a bad summary of the case for stopping Trump and Cruz at the convention.
But his finish is a delusion.
Along comes Donald Trump offering to replace it and change the nature of the G.O.P.
He tramples all over the anti-government ideology of modern Republicanism.
He would replace the free-market orthodoxy with authoritarian nationalism.
He offers to use government on behalf of the American working class, but in negative and defensive ways: to build walls, to close trade, to ban outside groups, to smash enemies.
According to him, America’s problems aren’t caused by deep structural shifts.
They’re caused by morons and parasites.
Not a bad summary of the case for stopping Trump and Cruz at the convention.
But his finish is a delusion.
Along comes Donald Trump offering to replace it and change the nature of the G.O.P.
He tramples all over the anti-government ideology of modern Republicanism.
He would replace the free-market orthodoxy with authoritarian nationalism.
He offers to use government on behalf of the American working class, but in negative and defensive ways: to build walls, to close trade, to ban outside groups, to smash enemies.
According to him, America’s problems aren’t caused by deep structural shifts.
They’re caused by morons and parasites.
The Great Leader will take them down.
If the G.O.P. is going to survive as a decent and viable national party, it can’t cling to the fading orthodoxy Cruz represents.
But it can’t shift to ugly Trumpian nationalism, either.
It has to find a third alternative: limited but energetic use of government to expand mobility and widen openness and opportunity.
That is what Kasich, Rubio, Paul Ryan and others are stumbling toward.
Phooey.
Kasich, Rubio, and Ryan are not remotely three peas in the same pod, and none represents a way forward.
The way forward is the way back, emulation of Eisenhower and Nixon and Rockefeller.
They were, like Trump, friendly to the working class and the Big Government built by, at the time, over half a century of progressivism, in total contrast to its sworn enemies, followers of Goldwater whom they all three despised and whose conservatism they loathed.
A Republican Party willing to resume that identity can be a serious and viable competitor for the socially and economically further left Democratic Party.
But nobody who came to speak for any variety of Republicanism in the last few decades will say that, since all of them are conservatives, themselves, of one stripe or another.
If the G.O.P. is going to survive as a decent and viable national party, it can’t cling to the fading orthodoxy Cruz represents.
But it can’t shift to ugly Trumpian nationalism, either.
It has to find a third alternative: limited but energetic use of government to expand mobility and widen openness and opportunity.
That is what Kasich, Rubio, Paul Ryan and others are stumbling toward.
Phooey.
Kasich, Rubio, and Ryan are not remotely three peas in the same pod, and none represents a way forward.
The way forward is the way back, emulation of Eisenhower and Nixon and Rockefeller.
They were, like Trump, friendly to the working class and the Big Government built by, at the time, over half a century of progressivism, in total contrast to its sworn enemies, followers of Goldwater whom they all three despised and whose conservatism they loathed.
A Republican Party willing to resume that identity can be a serious and viable competitor for the socially and economically further left Democratic Party.
But nobody who came to speak for any variety of Republicanism in the last few decades will say that, since all of them are conservatives, themselves, of one stripe or another.
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Is Trump really a Nazi?
Is this actual evidence of an unnerving affinity?
Sarah P at C&L writes,
It is well known that Trump slept with a copy of My New Order, a collection of Hitler's speeches, on his nightstand.
"Well known"?
Is it known at all?
Well, it's known, or close enough, that he was given a copy of that book by a friend many years ago.
The story that he keeps it on his nightstand is based on a reputed claim of an ex wife to a divorce lawyer.
Too, according to a different site,
In the Vanity Fair article, Ivana Trump told a friend that her husband's cousin, John Walter "clicks his heels and says, 'Heil Hitler," when visiting Trump's office.
Maybe not the best source.
Meanwhile, Trump the non-interventionist is frightening neocon war lovers to defect . . . to Hillary.
And Scott McConnell thinks The Donald is "a moderate Republican."
Christie’s endorsement obviously helps Trump in a tactical sense, days before the critical Super Tuesday primaries.
It should do more in helping to define who Trump is and what his rise means.
Populist, yes, kind of.
Pro-working class?
Well, certainly working class voters have been extraordinarily responsive to his campaign.
But with what politicians, in what category, should he be grouped?
On that score, we’ve seen an extraordinary amount of heavy breathing fright-mongering.
But as the evidence mounts, the category that includes Rockefeller, Nixon, Ford, and now Chris Christie is easily the best fit.
Sarah P at C&L writes,
It is well known that Trump slept with a copy of My New Order, a collection of Hitler's speeches, on his nightstand.
"Well known"?
Is it known at all?
Well, it's known, or close enough, that he was given a copy of that book by a friend many years ago.
The story that he keeps it on his nightstand is based on a reputed claim of an ex wife to a divorce lawyer.
Too, according to a different site,
In the Vanity Fair article, Ivana Trump told a friend that her husband's cousin, John Walter "clicks his heels and says, 'Heil Hitler," when visiting Trump's office.
Maybe not the best source.
Meanwhile, Trump the non-interventionist is frightening neocon war lovers to defect . . . to Hillary.
And Scott McConnell thinks The Donald is "a moderate Republican."
Christie’s endorsement obviously helps Trump in a tactical sense, days before the critical Super Tuesday primaries.
It should do more in helping to define who Trump is and what his rise means.
Populist, yes, kind of.
Pro-working class?
Well, certainly working class voters have been extraordinarily responsive to his campaign.
But with what politicians, in what category, should he be grouped?
On that score, we’ve seen an extraordinary amount of heavy breathing fright-mongering.
But as the evidence mounts, the category that includes Rockefeller, Nixon, Ford, and now Chris Christie is easily the best fit.
Wednesday, August 5, 2015
Buchanan stands up for his boss
The Plot to Destroy Nixon
I hope we hear more about this.
So far it's just tu quoque.
Important, but not a real defense.
I hope we hear more about this.
So far it's just tu quoque.
Important, but not a real defense.
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Nationalist vs Wall Street conservatives
Btw, while reading today some of the first pages of his book on Nixon's victory in 1968 I wondered whether PB would ever write about the Watergate scandal and the destruction of Nixon's presidency.
While I don't share his views of most of what he and I would both take as the central issues of politics, the man remains a very perceptive political and cultural analyst, journalist, and historian.
There's no book, but there is this.
Not enough.
We already know the downside of RN's historic opening to China.
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Far, far worse than Watergate
Deliberately prolonging a war just to win an election?
Pretty shocking stuff.
But what if he disapproved of the deal LBJ was trying to force the Vietnamese into accepting, and as a policy matter thought the US could and should do better?
Still illegal, but that difference in motive makes for a different objection, this one to the "arrogance of power" mentality, to Nixon's worries about the US being seen as a "pitiful, helpless giant," as reasons for war, or for continuing for one second longer than necessary the foolish war RN inherited from LBJ, that LBJ should never have got into (nor should Kennedy before him have committed us so far as he did by sending "advisers").
Which was it?
All the same, if Clinton deserved impeachment and should have resigned for his perjury then Nixon deserved far worse, not for Watergate but for ruining LBJ's chance to get us out of Vietnam in 1968, years before Nixon would finally give up.
Even if his intentions were not, as seems all too likely, so starkly selfish as to suit the black heart of some Shakespearean Machiavel.
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
America: Pat Buchanan on Nixon
From the interview.
Because of Watergate, many Americans have come to caricature Richard Nixon as a criminal, but you worked with him personally in the White House at that time.
What’s your assessment?
What’s your assessment?
That’s simply false.
There’s no question about it, when this stupid break-in occurred at the Watergate, that the five who were caught and one or two others—Liddy and Hunt—went high up into the Committee to Re-Elect the President.
But they had nothing to do with the White House.
There’s no question about it, when this stupid break-in occurred at the Watergate, that the five who were caught and one or two others—Liddy and Hunt—went high up into the Committee to Re-Elect the President.
But they had nothing to do with the White House.
. . . . .
In your opinion, what were President Nixon’s greatest accomplishments?
Let me just mention a few.
He ended the war in Vietnam, brought the troops home and brought the POWs home.
He negotiated the greatest arms control agreement with the Soviet Union since the Washington Naval Agreement of 1921-22.
He opened up China and ended decades of bristling hostility with the People’s Republic of China, bring them into the “League of Nations” if you will.
He rescued Israel during the Yom Kippur War with an air lift.
He brought Egypt out of the Soviet bloc and into the Western camp.
He ended the draft, he de-segregated the south, he’s responsible for the 18-year old voting age that he signed into law, he created the EPA, he created the Cancer Institute, he created OSHA for better or worse.
He created the greatest political coalition since FDR.
And he did most of these things in his first term, except for the Yom Kippur War, which would have been more than enough to make him one of the ten greatest presidents had it not been for Watergate—and all folks remember now are Watergate and China.
He ended the war in Vietnam, brought the troops home and brought the POWs home.
He negotiated the greatest arms control agreement with the Soviet Union since the Washington Naval Agreement of 1921-22.
He opened up China and ended decades of bristling hostility with the People’s Republic of China, bring them into the “League of Nations” if you will.
He rescued Israel during the Yom Kippur War with an air lift.
He brought Egypt out of the Soviet bloc and into the Western camp.
He ended the draft, he de-segregated the south, he’s responsible for the 18-year old voting age that he signed into law, he created the EPA, he created the Cancer Institute, he created OSHA for better or worse.
He created the greatest political coalition since FDR.
And he did most of these things in his first term, except for the Yom Kippur War, which would have been more than enough to make him one of the ten greatest presidents had it not been for Watergate—and all folks remember now are Watergate and China.
The magazine of the American Jesuits.
Friday, July 4, 2014
New, Buchanan on Nixon
Nixon's comeback
And "the lie of the Southern Strategy."
I'll wait for the paperback.
Or a sale price at B&N.
And "the lie of the Southern Strategy."
I'll wait for the paperback.
Or a sale price at B&N.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
More than that?
BS, native-born American citizen and Israeli agent of influence writes,
When Nixon won in
1968, he embarked on a presidency in which he never once had control of both
houses of Congress.
He faced an endless
bitter assault from the media and from the so-called intellectuals -- the
"pointy-headed" intellectuals, as George Wallace aptly called them.
Nevertheless, he ended
the war in Vietnam, brought home the POWs and calmed the wild streets.
More than that, he saved
Israel when it was threatened with annihilation by its neighbors, sending a
massive airlift of arms to Israel during the Yom Kippur War.
Nixon gave unequivocal
support to Israel: Johnson could not have cared less about its fate.
Cuban-Americans of the second and third generation are pretty bad, too.
Did Nixon really signal
any such thing as Stein says below?
And what Russian “hopes
of global domination”?
Phooey.
Nixon opened relations
with Red China that greatly sobered up Russia and allowed the U.S. to become
the world's dominant power and peacekeeper for a generation.
This was the key event
in ending the Cold War.
By
"encircling" the USSR and signaling that if Leonid Brezhnev began a
war against either the United States or China, he would face a dreaded
two-front war, he showed Russia that its hopes of global domination were not
going to work.
To soothe matters with
the still extremely dangerous Russian bear, he even signed a strategic arms
limitation treaty with the Soviets.
Apart from that, in many ways I agree with BS’s estimate of
Nixon and the way he was treated.
It is interesting I did not find this in any of his usual conservative venues.
It is interesting I did not find this in any of his usual conservative venues.
Friday, February 21, 2014
Sunday, February 2, 2014
Reading William Buckley: Athwart History
As revealed in these writings from as far back as the late forties, WFB and the conservatives he led aimed to destroy every vestige of the New Deal in America by all lawful means and every trace of Marxism on the planet by wars cold, hot, military, and ideological.
Those were his and their top priorities, amply demonstrated in this collection, covering most of the Cold War and the rise of conservatism to absolute control of the Republican Party, the last half of the 20th Century.
The articles are loaded with the standard conservative polemical bilge, just as one would expect.
Interesting historical documents revealing details of the particular issues fought out over those years that covered so much of my lifetime.
I was born in 1949, the year China fell to Mao.
Buckley volubly disapproved of Eisenhower and Nixon, regarding both as collectivists, statists, and big government liberals.
He and his kind aimed to make sure the Republican Party had no room for the likes of them.
And they have succeeded.
Nixon wrote a great deal after he was driven from the White House.
I wonder if he ever had much to say about the takeover of his party by people IKE thought were crackpots and who hated him almost as much as the Democrats who eventually brought him down.
Or about how far the "southern strategy," a creation of the conservatives even before Goldwater tried it and as unnecessary to Nixon's 1972 victory as the Watergate burglaries, helped secure and safeguard the conservative conquest of the GOP.
Nixon wrote a great deal after he was driven from the White House.
I wonder if he ever had much to say about the takeover of his party by people IKE thought were crackpots and who hated him almost as much as the Democrats who eventually brought him down.
Or about how far the "southern strategy," a creation of the conservatives even before Goldwater tried it and as unnecessary to Nixon's 1972 victory as the Watergate burglaries, helped secure and safeguard the conservative conquest of the GOP.
Could the ridiculous and lying rhetoric of perfectly orthodox and mainstream conservatives, equating liberalism, the New Deal, Social Security, Medicare, the interstate highway system, progressive income taxation, and the federal minimum wage with communism, Marxism, tyranny, slavery, and totalitarianism, be responsible for so many people refusing to believe Reagan's perfectly correct charge that the Soviet Union was an evil empire?
For so easily believing Uncle Ho was a sincere admirer of the American Revolution and the values of Jefferson?
If communist tyranny is just Social Security and Medicare, how can anyone believe it's an evil empire?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)