He was a crook (1994)(m.theatlantic.com)
m.theatlantic.com
He was a crook (1994)
http://m.theatlantic.com/past/unbound/graffiti/crook.htm?single_page=true
36 comments
Nixon may be up for a re-assessment... but not because of Watergate. If anything, what (partially) redeems Nixon is his foreign policy accomplishments. He wound down the Vietnam War and he successfully pursued a rapprochement with China that served to split the PRC/Soviet Union alliance. Both were important things that needed to be done, and arguably, Nixon was one of the few American politicians who could do those things without instantly being accused of being a communist sympathizer.
But in terms of domestic policy, Nixon was a disaster. He served over the worst of the economic "malaise" that would be later characterized as "stagflation". He started the "war on drugs", and for that reason he is in no small part responsible for the deaths and incarceration of millions of poor, minority men. His attitudes on civil liberties and legitimate dissent continue to infect the military and intelligence agencies, who, to this day, see their job as protecting the American state from the American people. It was under Nixon that the Executive branch began to see itself as superior to the Legislative and Judicial branches. This is what people were referring to when they said that Nixon began the tradition of the "imperial" presidency. While blame can be laid at the feet of Nixon's successors for not reversing the harms that Nixon did, the blame for setting a bad precedent rests squarely on Nixon's shoulders. No amount of historical revision can or should erase that.
But in terms of domestic policy, Nixon was a disaster. He served over the worst of the economic "malaise" that would be later characterized as "stagflation". He started the "war on drugs", and for that reason he is in no small part responsible for the deaths and incarceration of millions of poor, minority men. His attitudes on civil liberties and legitimate dissent continue to infect the military and intelligence agencies, who, to this day, see their job as protecting the American state from the American people. It was under Nixon that the Executive branch began to see itself as superior to the Legislative and Judicial branches. This is what people were referring to when they said that Nixon began the tradition of the "imperial" presidency. While blame can be laid at the feet of Nixon's successors for not reversing the harms that Nixon did, the blame for setting a bad precedent rests squarely on Nixon's shoulders. No amount of historical revision can or should erase that.
>He wound down the Vietnam War
After getting Kissinger to prolong it by getting the South Vietnamese to torpedo the peace talks, causing the deaths of tens of thousands, simply in order to get elected.[1]
>a rapprochement with China that served to split the PRC/Soviet Union alliance.
The relationship was broken long before rapprochement. Nixon/Kissinger took advantage of the split; they didn't cause it.
As an aside, I'm currently reading Kissinger's World Order. It's a fascinating read by a man who was undeniably a giant of a statesman, despite his many flaws.
[1] http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vie...
After getting Kissinger to prolong it by getting the South Vietnamese to torpedo the peace talks, causing the deaths of tens of thousands, simply in order to get elected.[1]
>a rapprochement with China that served to split the PRC/Soviet Union alliance.
The relationship was broken long before rapprochement. Nixon/Kissinger took advantage of the split; they didn't cause it.
As an aside, I'm currently reading Kissinger's World Order. It's a fascinating read by a man who was undeniably a giant of a statesman, despite his many flaws.
[1] http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vie...
Common consensus today appears to paint Kissinger as the driving force and genius behind the Nixon administration's foreign policy success. I think Thompson expresses this quite well:
> Kissinger is a slippery little devil, a world-class hustler with a thick German accent and a very keen eye for weak spots at the top of the power structure. Nixon was one of those, and Super K exploited him mercilessly, all the way to the end.
Whether this is an accurate depiction I have no idea. But if it is, then Nixon seems to deserve credit mainly for getting out of the way.
> Kissinger is a slippery little devil, a world-class hustler with a thick German accent and a very keen eye for weak spots at the top of the power structure. Nixon was one of those, and Super K exploited him mercilessly, all the way to the end.
Whether this is an accurate depiction I have no idea. But if it is, then Nixon seems to deserve credit mainly for getting out of the way.
Something few people (on the right or left would imagine today) it was the Nixon administration which started the earned income tax credit for the poor[1]. So, he wasn't totally a classist/ideologue as people night think. Seems more pragmatist than people might think.
I think it's fascinating that a conservative admi'n would consider negative taxes. Something society, I think will need to consider more seriously in the future as people's jobs are obsoleted.
[1]http://www.nber.org/digest/aug06/w11729.html
I think it's fascinating that a conservative admi'n would consider negative taxes. Something society, I think will need to consider more seriously in the future as people's jobs are obsoleted.
[1]http://www.nber.org/digest/aug06/w11729.html
I think that you're underestimating Thompson, who may regard certain people as unrelentingly evil, but doesn't seem to think of basically anyone as unrelentingly good -- and to have a black-and-white frame, doesn't the white part need to be there to?
At any rate, I don't think that his characterization of Nixon is as one-dimensional as you're implying. Things like this:
> Nixon laughed when I told him this. "Don't worry," he said,
> "I, too, am a family man, and we feel the same way about
> you."
complicate it.
At any rate, understand Thompson's style as existing within the milieu of conventional journalism. Someone who will say bluntly horrible things about not just Nixon, but the most powerful politicians of the day may not tell the whole story, but they serve as a bracing corrective to mainstream journalism which is incredibly deferential to people who are the traditional leaders of American society.
At any rate, I don't think that his characterization of Nixon is as one-dimensional as you're implying. Things like this:
> Nixon laughed when I told him this. "Don't worry," he said,
> "I, too, am a family man, and we feel the same way about
> you."
complicate it.
At any rate, understand Thompson's style as existing within the milieu of conventional journalism. Someone who will say bluntly horrible things about not just Nixon, but the most powerful politicians of the day may not tell the whole story, but they serve as a bracing corrective to mainstream journalism which is incredibly deferential to people who are the traditional leaders of American society.
>> I'm also fascinated by Bob Woodward, a brilliant Yale grad who spend several years in the Office of Naval Intelligence, before deciding to become a reporter. Watergate was one of his first stories, an absolutely incredible coincidence - a guy with US intelligence connections breaks a story that takes down a president.
You might enjoy Len Colodny's research
http://www.watergate.com/
History is not always what it pretends it to be.
I still don't like Nixon but I can understand how guys like him end up in commanding positions.
The article is actually objective - tell it like it is rather than the uppity pretensions of 'presidency' and undue deference given to so-called politicians, leaders etc... (not just in the public sphere, but also in private).
This is another reason I like 'Daily Show' for news - the mockery strips away all the usual fig-leaf of BS 'respectability'.
You might enjoy Len Colodny's research
http://www.watergate.com/
History is not always what it pretends it to be.
I still don't like Nixon but I can understand how guys like him end up in commanding positions.
The article is actually objective - tell it like it is rather than the uppity pretensions of 'presidency' and undue deference given to so-called politicians, leaders etc... (not just in the public sphere, but also in private).
This is another reason I like 'Daily Show' for news - the mockery strips away all the usual fig-leaf of BS 'respectability'.
In a late 90s Atlantic interview with HST, at one point he calls Clinton more depraved than Nixon.
> Admittedly this was written in 1994 - still under a relative veil of ignorance - and we hadn't seen Clinton, Bush 2 or Obama.
I wrote a reply last night that I ended up deleting because I didn't think it was worth it, but now after some time let me re-formulate.
I actually think, though you didn't intend it to, your sarcastic statement rings true: There hasn't been anyone as personally corrupt as Nixon. Remember, Nixon was literally caught laundering money, running a personal secret police force, and extorting people for campaign funds.
While others may lie about sex, lie about weapons, lie about war, lie about civil liberties, and generally do things we disapprove of, I would say:
* Have they been caught laundering money?
* Have they been caught running a personal secret police for personal gain? (I think the "personal gain" angle is the key difference between post-9/11 presidents and Nixon - NSA has done questionable things but they weren't doing it for Bush/Obama's personal money laundering coverup)
* Are they guilty of extortion?
I would say that yes, Nixon was more personally corrupt that those who came after. (Though I'll admit, 10 years ago I read John Dean's "Worse than Watergate" and was pretty moved by it.)
I wrote a reply last night that I ended up deleting because I didn't think it was worth it, but now after some time let me re-formulate.
I actually think, though you didn't intend it to, your sarcastic statement rings true: There hasn't been anyone as personally corrupt as Nixon. Remember, Nixon was literally caught laundering money, running a personal secret police force, and extorting people for campaign funds.
While others may lie about sex, lie about weapons, lie about war, lie about civil liberties, and generally do things we disapprove of, I would say:
* Have they been caught laundering money?
* Have they been caught running a personal secret police for personal gain? (I think the "personal gain" angle is the key difference between post-9/11 presidents and Nixon - NSA has done questionable things but they weren't doing it for Bush/Obama's personal money laundering coverup)
* Are they guilty of extortion?
I would say that yes, Nixon was more personally corrupt that those who came after. (Though I'll admit, 10 years ago I read John Dean's "Worse than Watergate" and was pretty moved by it.)
[deleted]
The reason Nixon will up for a re-assessment is because of the record of the more recent office holders. I don't think Nixon would have thought it was ok to authorize torture.
> I will confess - I've never read a complete Hunter S Thompson piece before.
He's very hit-and-miss, but try "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail" for Thompson at his most coherent. It's not black-and-white, but mostly a colorful character study of the 1968 Presidential candidates.
He's very hit-and-miss, but try "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail" for Thompson at his most coherent. It's not black-and-white, but mostly a colorful character study of the 1968 Presidential candidates.
Leave it to Hunter S Thompson to remind us. In listening to the recent analysis of our US news pundits it is possible to think that the polarization in today's audiences is a recent happening until you come across articles like this.
Nixon invented the freaking Southern Strategy. I think noting "polarization" in HST's polemic is missing the forest for the trees a bit.
I think it is a natural tendency for humans to self-segregate into opposing groups based on minor difference.
Sometime, I even feel that the Republican party disagree with Obama just for the sake of it.
Sometime, I even feel that the Republican party disagree with Obama just for the sake of it.
>Sometime, I even feel that the Republican party disagree with Obama just for the sake of it.
Well... disagreeing with and attempting to destroy the agenda of Democrats in power is apparently their job.
Not that the Democrats are any better, but the people who vote and write the big checks are the people who want their blood and circuses.
Well... disagreeing with and attempting to destroy the agenda of Democrats in power is apparently their job.
Not that the Democrats are any better, but the people who vote and write the big checks are the people who want their blood and circuses.
No, conservatives simply don't like their agenda. Obama and the Democrats are taking the country in a direction we don't like, and therefore we oppose them. Is it that hard to understand?
Not at all, I disagree with his agenda as well (probably for the opposite reasons - I don't think he's nearly left wing enough) but it also seems to be the case that the Republican party has been stirring up their base over a bit more than Obama's agenda, for the sake of opportunistic pandering. The entire "birther" controversy wouldn't even have happened if his name had been John Smith.
There's no birther "controversy". There's a tiny number of internet wackos that have been aggrandized in left leaning media such that Democrats think every Republican believes Obama was born in Kenya.
You believe this kind of nonsense because the Democrats and their media organs want you to believe it.
You believe this kind of nonsense because the Democrats and their media organs want you to believe it.
Yes it is. Explain please.
Which word didn't you understand?
"agenda"
Being that Obama is right of center, and that the GOP establishment has no "agenda" other than opposing Obama for the sake of it, it's not clear what this means.
Is it his continued support of the Military Industrial Complex? That seems to be in line with the conservative notion of "national defense is holy and must not be questioned".
Is it his continued support of Wall Street and other big economic players? I thought you people liked that stuff?
Is it his disengagement with the War on Drugs? Well, good Americans don't do drugs so that can't be a problem. Being soft on crime is bad, m'kay?
Maybe it's his weakness in backing down on torture as an intelligence tool. But he does at least carry on the tradition of letting the "intelligence community" do whatever the fuck they want with impunity. So there he's good with keeping with tradition, and we know how conservatives love tradition.
I know, it must be his extending a Republican approved healthcare plan. That must be so vexing because of all the other conservative plans to reform a system that is undeniable in its economic inefficiencies. We really should give more credence to praying to Jesus for a cure.
Being that Obama is right of center, and that the GOP establishment has no "agenda" other than opposing Obama for the sake of it, it's not clear what this means.
Is it his continued support of the Military Industrial Complex? That seems to be in line with the conservative notion of "national defense is holy and must not be questioned".
Is it his continued support of Wall Street and other big economic players? I thought you people liked that stuff?
Is it his disengagement with the War on Drugs? Well, good Americans don't do drugs so that can't be a problem. Being soft on crime is bad, m'kay?
Maybe it's his weakness in backing down on torture as an intelligence tool. But he does at least carry on the tradition of letting the "intelligence community" do whatever the fuck they want with impunity. So there he's good with keeping with tradition, and we know how conservatives love tradition.
I know, it must be his extending a Republican approved healthcare plan. That must be so vexing because of all the other conservative plans to reform a system that is undeniable in its economic inefficiencies. We really should give more credence to praying to Jesus for a cure.
>Being that Obama is right of center...
Wow. It didn't even take a whole sentence for you lose credibility.
>...and that the GOP establishment has no "agenda" other than opposing Obama for the sake of it...
Based on what evidence? You don't think they have policy disagreements with the president? So what is their motive, anyway?
>Is it his continued support of the Military Industrial Complex? That seems to be in line with the conservative notion of "national defense is holy and must not be questioned".
That's a lefty straw man. Isn't true and never was.
>Is it his continued support of Wall Street and other big economic players? I thought you people liked that stuff?
Wall Street certainly bankrolls the party apparatus for both the Democrats and Republicans. Actual conservatives want to see an end to QE, but I doubt that will happen even if we take the presidency in 2016 (which is likely).
>Is it his disengagement with the War on Drugs? Well, good Americans don't do drugs so that can't be a problem. Being soft on crime is bad, m'kay?
Another straw man. The Republican party is split right down the middle on the question of drug policy. You know who wants to continue the drug war almost unanimously? Democrats.
>Maybe it's his weakness in backing down on torture as an intelligence tool. But he does at least carry on the tradition of letting the "intelligence community" do whatever the fuck they want with impunity. So there he's good with keeping with tradition, and we know how conservatives love tradition.
This is incoherent.
>I know, it must be his extending a Republican approved healthcare plan.
Eh... this is so far out in left field I have to assume you're drunk.
Wow. It didn't even take a whole sentence for you lose credibility.
>...and that the GOP establishment has no "agenda" other than opposing Obama for the sake of it...
Based on what evidence? You don't think they have policy disagreements with the president? So what is their motive, anyway?
>Is it his continued support of the Military Industrial Complex? That seems to be in line with the conservative notion of "national defense is holy and must not be questioned".
That's a lefty straw man. Isn't true and never was.
>Is it his continued support of Wall Street and other big economic players? I thought you people liked that stuff?
Wall Street certainly bankrolls the party apparatus for both the Democrats and Republicans. Actual conservatives want to see an end to QE, but I doubt that will happen even if we take the presidency in 2016 (which is likely).
>Is it his disengagement with the War on Drugs? Well, good Americans don't do drugs so that can't be a problem. Being soft on crime is bad, m'kay?
Another straw man. The Republican party is split right down the middle on the question of drug policy. You know who wants to continue the drug war almost unanimously? Democrats.
>Maybe it's his weakness in backing down on torture as an intelligence tool. But he does at least carry on the tradition of letting the "intelligence community" do whatever the fuck they want with impunity. So there he's good with keeping with tradition, and we know how conservatives love tradition.
This is incoherent.
>I know, it must be his extending a Republican approved healthcare plan.
Eh... this is so far out in left field I have to assume you're drunk.
Not "just for the sake of it". It's a way of affirming their membership in the club.
Pieces like this say a lot more about the author than about the subject.
Nixon did some very good things, and some very bad things, but this article didn't actually talk about any of them.
Nixon did some very good things, and some very bad things, but this article didn't actually talk about any of them.
The things Nixon did are widely known, good and bad. You don't really have to rehash them every time you speak of the man.
Not to mention, as an obit., it was an appropriate time to focus on the man himself (despite the dramatic break from typical rose-tinted obit. style)
Not to mention, as an obit., it was an appropriate time to focus on the man himself (despite the dramatic break from typical rose-tinted obit. style)
The things Nixon did are widely RECORDED, good and bad. This is not the same thing, and younger people won't know.
Hell, he was president from 1969 to 1974, right? That's literally over 40 years ago. Most people wouldn't be able to tell you that much about politics in general, nor the specifics of what Nixon did.
Most people don't go out of their way to research political history, unfortunately.
And if we never speak of the thing's he's done, they'll fade from public consciousness and any lessons from it will be lost.
Hell, he was president from 1969 to 1974, right? That's literally over 40 years ago. Most people wouldn't be able to tell you that much about politics in general, nor the specifics of what Nixon did.
Most people don't go out of their way to research political history, unfortunately.
And if we never speak of the thing's he's done, they'll fade from public consciousness and any lessons from it will be lost.
TFA was published in 1994 - 20 years ago. We can't expect the author to update it for today's audience, especially given that he's been dead for almost 10 years.
[deleted]
I'm not advocating "hiding" the things he's done as if they cannot be spoken of. But if you can never assume a modicum of background in your readers, you waste all your time on review.
Perhaps I'm a bit more "soft" than you, but I'd rather obituaries or stories about the deceased be polite rather than an eloquent version of "Ding-dong! The Witch is Dead!" lest we forget there are actual evil people in the world whose bad actions vastly overshadow those of corrupt politicians.
There are more brutally "evil" people out there, who are morehands-on in the things they do, but they don't overshadow the corrupt people at the top of the US government, who are responsible for enabling, if not causing, millions of deaths yearly, and being a roadblock to progress.
I agree that we should be "polite" in the sense that they shouldn't fling insults around like a monkey flings shit, but I don't think we should stick to euphemisms and lies by omission, just for the sake of not "sullying his/her memory".
Speak softly, cleanly, and frankly, but don't be "polite".
I agree that we should be "polite" in the sense that they shouldn't fling insults around like a monkey flings shit, but I don't think we should stick to euphemisms and lies by omission, just for the sake of not "sullying his/her memory".
Speak softly, cleanly, and frankly, but don't be "polite".
Says you.
Exhibit A: Mexico. A country with vast potential being held back by their corrupt politicians.
Exhibit A: Mexico. A country with vast potential being held back by their corrupt politicians.
No need to be eloquent!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ding-Dong!_The_Witch_Is_Dead#De...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ding-Dong!_The_Witch_Is_Dead#De...
[deleted]
lest we forget
Admittedly this was written in 1994 - still under a relative veil of ignorance - and we hadn't seen Clinton, Bush 2 or Obama. By this nice polemic - you would think we've never had another president do anything close to Nixon. No politician or party has ever used FBI for political reasons, abused CIA/NSA intelligence, or used the IRS for political purposes (audits, leaked returns, etc.) And I don't think Nixon really "innovated" in this, he was just the first where it became publicly known. LBJ was arguably far worse as a power-mad president, but he gets a pass because of his Great Society initiatives.
This piece did refresh dots for me with J Edgar Hoover dying in office. This wasn't known when Thompson wrote this, but Mark Felt (also of the FBI) was deep throat, an FBI lifer who reported to Patrick Gray. Gray was a Nixon appointee from outside the agency - not an FBI lifer - a Navy guy, an attorney, and arguably seen as an interloper by many at the agency.
I'm also fascinated by Bob Woodward, a brilliant Yale grad who spend several years in the Office of Naval Intelligence, before deciding to become a reporter. Watergate was one of his first stories, an absolutely incredible coincidence - a guy with US intelligence connections breaks a story that takes down a president.
At the risk of a thousand downvotes - I expect Nixon will be up for a re-assessment at some point. The Watergate story is much more complicated and fascinating than conventionally understood.