Can someone explain Richard Nixon to me?

[Touring Mars]

President Richard Nixon, to many people in the world, is portrayed as the epitome of all that is wrong with America, democracy, humankind etc....purest evil from the fruit of the same name, and sold by Tropicana in cardboard cartons under the brand-name 'Evil Juice'...

...but is this really justified, or even remotely true? Popular culture is awash with references to President Nixon, from Woody Allen's 1973 film 'Sleeper' (refering to Nixon's absence from all U.S Currency in the year 2173), Lynyrd Skynyrd's 1974 classic 'Sweet Home Alabama' (a reference to Watergate) and the Oscar-winning movie 'The Killing Fields' (reference to Nixon's policies regarding Cambodia*), as well as more sympathetic bios such as The Manic Street Preachers' "The Love Of Richard Nixon" (2005?) and Oliver Stone's "Nixon" movie.

My question is, does Bill Clinton's statement at Nixon's funeral as the 1960's being 'The Age of Nixon' ring true or not...? And is the common perception of Nixon still one of 'he was an evil git' or not...? Do Nixon's achievements (opening diplomatic relations between the U.S and China - a monumental achievement at the time, and in today's context a massively significant step; the ending of the Vietnam War (as resonant today as any issue of the Nixon Era) and Nixon's support for medical research) register against the popularly held opinions of Nixon being an underhand crook who destroyed all trust in American politics forever??

I'd like to hear what anyone thinks about Nixon himself, his influence (good or bad) on U.S and world politics, past, present or future...

* There is a clip in the film 'The Killing Fields', interspersed with horrific real footage of Cambodia in 1975, of Nixon himself stating that "Cambodia is the Nixon Doctrine in it's purest form", which I took (at the time) as a damning indictment of Nixon's policies (not actually knowing what they were....) But I recently saw the whole statement in which that same sentence appears in quite a different context, where Nixon described the difference between the reality of U.S interventionism in Vietnam and Cambodia, suggesting that U.S intervention in Vietnam was not the Nixon Administration's policy but that his non-interventionist policy toward Cambodia was "...(Cambodia is) the Nixon Doctrine in it's purest form".... (This is just an example of popular cultural bias towards anti-Nixon sentiment, and not a comment on the truth behind either claim...)

 

[ExigeEvan]

Good question.

I've always wondered why he was picked on so mercilessly in Matt Groening cartoons.

 

[TopHat]

Ummm, the fact he lied about Watergate? Watergate itselft? Maybe he was just annoying.

 

[Philly]

Politics are very funny. People are better know for the things they do wrong than what good they do. Nixon is known for Vietnam and Watergate. Do those two things make him a horrible president? Look at Bill Clinton. Does the Monica Lewinski scandal make him a horrible leader? Iguess you could even argue a pro-Hitler argument using this idea. I'm sure Nixon did some wonderful thing, he is just known for what he did wrong.

Then there are the horrible presidents who will be forgotten forever. These are the guys who mess up so much people stop caring. Bush? Maybe a few before WWI?

I don't know much about Nixon, but this is just my take on his -erm- popularity.

 

[Touring Mars]

Nixon is known for Vietnam and Watergate. .

That's an illustrative point... you say 'Nixon' to someone and they say exactly what you just said.... but to my knowledge, Nixon was the President who presided over finishing the Vietnam War... arguably a far harder (and infinitely more thankless task) than starting a war ever was...

 

[Boundary Layer]

Iguess you could even argue a pro-Hitler argument using this idea.

Weak.

You're saying a good leader is short tempered, racist, with an appetite for conquest larger than what his troops and supply lines can possibly keep pace with? A man whose actions and decisions lead to the division and foreign occupation of his country, the destruction of several prominent cities, the disruption of public services and industry, and the death of millions of citizens - this is a good leader?
A good public speaker and an ambitious risk taker - yes. A good leader... not in my books.

If 'this idea' can in fact be used as a pro-Hitler argument, then there's something wrong with 'this idea'. Unlike your other examples, Hitler's faults and flaws are precisely why he was not a good leader.



Sorry, that was off-topic, but I wasn't about to let that slide.
I don't really have anything to say about Nixon, I've kind of wondered why he's always portrayed negatively myself.

 

[Omnis]

Nixon also went to China.

Then there are the horrible presidents who will be forgotten forever. These are the guys who mess up so much people stop caring. Bush? Maybe a few before WWI?

Firstly, Bush is not a horrible President. He's not a great leader, but his administration has accommodated a record-breaking bull market quite nicely.

Then, there are people like Herbert Hoover... remember him? He sucked so much, they named a vacuum after him.

Presidents who may have sucked before WWI are likely forgotten because of the lack of press. Think about it... Bush probably has about 40x more press than any other president just because of technology.

 

[Touring Mars]

Think about it... Bush probably has about 40x more press than any other president just because of technology.

That was the original inspiration behind this thread... Nixon is not exactly immune to the era of publicity, but that is why I'm interested in his 'legacy' because it seems overly negative compared to what he also achieved.... the real original insp. for this thread was actually this article, btw

 

[NoQuarter]

So far, there is no one in this thread that was even alive when Nixon was President. There is so much more to this complex man than Watergate or Viet Nam. History is still corrupted by the historians (liberal journalists?), and all most people remember about RMN was his role in the "loss of innocence" of American Politics. I was fortune (or unfortunate) enough to be coming of age when Nixon fell...

He was a brilliant, but a flawed man. His loss to Kennedy in the '60 election almost ended his political career. He was not an attractive man as Kennedy was, and was the first Presidential Candidate, along with Kennedy, to have a National debate on television. Many political analysts have said that Nixon's arguments were more compelling, and he seemed to be much more informed about the issues as well as astute to the tides of the American public opinion, but due to his 5 o'clock shadow, and his untimely flop sweat, along with JFK's charm and good looks, most of these early TV viewers were left preferring Kennedy to Nixon. You know the rest.

When Nixon was elected in '68, he inherited the mess made by Johnson and McNamara. It took him three years to close the books on that dark chapter of American Foreign Policy, and is one reason why he was so fervent, and some say, successful, in courting the sleeping giant of China.

I truly believe that it will still be many years before we know the complete truth about Watergate. I personally believe that Nixon did not engage nor order the break-in, nor did he initially know about it, but when he did, he made the decision to cover it up. Most pundits claim, even to this day, that he did this to protect his own ass, but I think that he really did it protect the Office of the Presidency, something that he was adamant about in later years. Regardless of the motivation or reasons, he did try to cover it up, and this start of his downfall completed the disenfranchisement of the American Public and National Government that had been rocked throughout the 60's and early 70's.

 

[Danoff]

I think this thread belongs in the opinions forum, but I find Nixon to be a particularly troubling subject.

Nixon got us out of vietnam (Kennedy was a big part of the reason we were there) the only way America could get out. He got us out despite congress trying to stop him. He also helped greatly with China, and in total was a good president. I didn't agree with everything he did, he had a bit of a socialist agenda that rubs me the wrong way, but he did a lot of good things too.

The watergate thing is way blown out of proportion. Yes, it was bad, yes Nixon's part in it, small as it was, was bad. He resigned over it, and his legacy has been marred ever since.

I think Nixon gets a very bad rap. He's blamed for vietnam and watergate instead of being credited with ending vietnam and china. Meanwhile in Kennedy's 2 years of office, he is credited with the missile crisis and the space program instead of being blamed for the bay of pigs and vietnam.

It doesn't make sense to me. Maybe Nixon just needed someone to shoot at him.

 

[Appie]

Watergate?. Can someone please explain that.

 

[Kylehnat]

Forget all diplomatic and humanitarian work that he did for 40 years--he was involved in a plan to screw his opponent over. The bastard.

Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter are two of the most loathed presidents in recent history...for no reason whatsoever. Both did far more good than people are willing to admit.

I didn't know much about Nixon until I visited the Nixon Library in Yorba Linda, California. Not surprisingly, the museum chooses to focus on the good news (of which there is a ton). Why people are so willing to selectively forget all of that is beyond me.

 

[Pupik]

Watergate?. Can someone please explain that.

You can get a not-perfectly-neutral review of it here: [wikipedia]Watergate[/wikipedia].

Nobody really knows what was to become of breaking into the Democratic National Convention headquarters. In my simple ignorance, wouldn't anything an opposing political party is about to say, would become revealed in front of national audience...making it a bit pointless, if I'm not mistaken?

Wiretapping anyone without permission, or without a court order is an invasion of privacy. You have the right to privacy, provided you haven't done anything wrong. The public found it very hard to swallow, since it conjured up ideas of Big Brother, and like all ideas spawned form federal government involvement, the President is the biggest target, many times unfairly so.

Edit: I also want to say that most American Presidents seem to be best remembered by the press for what occurred in the last year or two of their presidency. They could have saved mankind from an alien attack in their first term, made all areas of the world economy prosper, ended world homelessness and hunger, but if they cheated on their taxes as a lame duck, they're a no-good scoundrel until the day they die. Then, they're good people.

By defaulting to stand trial, where the guilty have their chance to prove their innocence (or at least, to prove a lot less of the guilt lies on their side), Richard Nixon gave everyone the idea that he was afraid he would be ousted from his post by a court of law. A lot of people feel that by not facing trial, he (1) Was a coward (2) Might as well be guilty. Other people think he protected the Office of President from being tarnished, and did the right thing by resigning.

Edit 2: Tree'd-ed by NoQuarter.

So what was the point of it? You got me, I was was only 7 months old when Nixon left office. I don't really have much of an opinion, other than a greater understanding of why we should be scrutinize government affairs whenever possible, and to think carefully and act responsibly when something doesn't seem right with our government affairs.

 

[wfooshee]

I WAS alive when Nixon was president, although not old enough to vote, yet. I was old enough to start getting worried about the draft, but we were outa there and the draft stopped before I was 18.

Why Nixon is remembered as the Viet Nam era president is that all the late-60's/early 70's protests were on his watch, as were the highly useless Paris peace talks. But 'Nam wasn't his fault.

Why Nixon is remembered for Watergate is that he lied to the public and denied his involvement in the cover-up. I'm still unclear if he was involved in the actual break-in, but he WAS involved in the cover-up, and it cost him everything.

Why he's remembered as the '60s president is beyond me. He was inaugurated in January 1969.

He was president during most of the Apollo moon program's manned flights, but nobody seems to remember that as the accomplishment it was. (Some still swear it was all Hollywood.) The program was cut short during his administration, however. Public interest waned severely, what with the war, race riots, Watergate, etc. We went to the moon, enough, already, was the public sentiment. There was also a great misunderstanding of the return on investment the space program offered. Computers, medicine, materials, and so on; nobody cared, it was expensive, so cut it out.

The economy was shaky, but stood OK. (Not like the double-digit prime rates and OPEC energy crisis under Carter! My sister and her new hubby bought a house during the Carter years, at 13.5%!!!!!)

Generally, Nixon was a successful president who inherited the toughest leftovers from a previous administration since Truman, and maybe second only to Truman in all of American history. He made a mistake in not owning up to the Watergate situation. If it was something he found out about after the fact, he should have rolled some heads and moved on. He didn't, and it ruined his administration.

 

[Danoff]

I wonder how much of the hatred for Nixon is appearance alone. You know if he was an actor he'd be playing the bad guy in every movie. He just has that face about him. Like Christopher Walken, the guy was born to play a bad guy.

Did someone say Carter was good? Hello! Inflation? Gas rationing? Hostage Crisis? Plus he can't shut up after leaving office.

 

[Omnis]

Nixon would've made a good Dick Skywalker.

 

[Touring Mars]

Maybe Nixon just needed someone to shoot at him.

Thanks for the excellent replies guys, it's particularly interesting to read your opinions of how Nixon is regarded today. 👍

I feel that Thatcher is a very unusual character here in the UK, totally loved and revered by her followers, but generally despised by everyone else... the word 'Thatcherite' is now almost as much a part of political terminology today as the terms 'liberal' or 'right-wing' are... Tony Blair is frequently referred to as being moderately 'Thatcherite' (despite being a Labour leader!). There is no doubt that Thatcher's legacy is a complex one and not necessarily a fair one.

 

[Gil]

Nixon wasn't as bad as "they" say. He was a pretty good president.
His social agenda wasn't all that.
But he was very skilled as far as foreign policy.
AS far as the Watergate scandal: Nixon didn't do anything that most every other politically savvy president before or after him hasn't done.
His "crime" was gettting caught.

 

[Duke]

That's an illustrative point... you say 'Nixon' to someone and they say exactly what you just said.... but to my knowledge, Nixon was the President who presided over finishing the Vietnam War... arguably a far harder (and infinitely more thankless task) than starting a war ever was...

Exactly. LBJ was the president - and a Democrat president, at that - who hugely ramped up US involvement in Viet Nam, as well as setting ridiculous rules of engagement that put US troops at a serious disadvantage against the Viet Cong. In fact, many of the unfortunate events events in Viet Nam (bombing Cambodia, etc.) were Nixon's direct attempts to salvage the terrible situation that LBJ had put us in.

Johnson was president for approximately the same length of time as Nixon, and was so bad at it that he refused the Democratic nomination to run for reelection in 1968. He not only made the Viet Nam situation much worse, he did little good at home, as well. Race relations and the economy both deteriorated under his stewardship. Yet he's largely ignored as a president, rather than utterly villified like Nixon is. Nixon was far from perfect, in any way, yet he did make some inroads, particularly in foreign policy.

Mostly, to be frank, I think it's simply because Johnson was a Democrat and Nixon was a Republican. Both men were arrogant, both men had flaws, both men lied to the US public and abused their power in some ways. But Nixon was a Republican, and as we all know, being a Republican is halfway to being an evil fascist robber baron. So the real successes he did have are overshadowed by the easy target of Watergate. And don't think for a minute that the Democrats hadn't/wouldn't/didn't do the exact same thing - Nixon just got caught at it.

 

[Philly]

Weak.

You're saying a good leader is short tempered, racist, with an appetite for conquest larger than what his troops and supply lines can possibly keep pace with? A man whose actions and decisions lead to the division and foreign occupation of his country, the destruction of several prominent cities, the disruption of public services and industry, and the death of millions of citizens - this is a good leader?
A good public speaker and an ambitious risk taker - yes. A good leader... not in my books.

If 'this idea' can in fact be used as a pro-Hitler argument, then there's something wrong with 'this idea'. Unlike your other examples, Hitler's faults and flaws are precisely why he was not a good leader.

I think I may have been misunderstood here. What I meant is that he did do a good thing here and there. Autobahn? He also had a few good ideas, a car for every family for example. What I was saying is that a good lawerr could say that nobody looks beyond his horrible WWII stuff and that he actually did some good stuff. Oh, and a leader is not only defined by policy. it is very rare that you get a man who can unite and rally a whole country like him. Maybe he used a bit of unfair trickery, but it seems that he could lead his people.

Firstly, Bush is not a horrible President. He's not a great leader, but his administration has accommodated a record-breaking bull market quite nicely.

Then, there are people like Herbert Hoover... remember him? He sucked so much, they named a vacuum after him.

I think the Bush bit came out a bit wrong. No, he is not horrible. He just isn't anuthing special. Maybe his leadership capabilities are reflected in his polls, maybe not. He did seem to handle 9/11 petty admirably, but I would like to see how any other president could handle it.

I considered using Hoover as an example, but he dosn't fit. He is pretty much completely blamed for starting the depression and not working to get us out of it. And he is known for that. He certainly hasn't faded to the point where people have no clue who he was. Ask any reasonably educated person, and they will most likely know who he is.

 

[wfooshee]

Just remembered something else about the Nixon years. During the first energy crisis, he initiated the 55-MPH Nationally Mandated Speed Limit. It's capitalized because it was a policy. There is no national speed limit, and the federal government has no right to set one, but what they did was to tell the states they would get no federal highway money if they didn't comply and set the state's speed limits to 55.

Another energy crisis "solution" was to extend Daylight Savings Time through the winter. This was the winter of '73-'74, I think. I live at the very eastern edge of the central time zone, and when we had DST in January, the sun came up during 3rd period of school.