|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 9, 2009 12:37:50 GMT -8
It's interesting how the reputations of political figures either grow or fall over time. I well remember how poorly Truman was thought of in the early 50s. He was pretty much a joke. We know how that view has changed (and rightly so) since then. How about Richard Nixon? Here is the opinion of one observer. www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.nixon09aug09,0,7238133,print.story AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 9, 2009 18:19:05 GMT -8
It's interesting how the reputations of political figures either grow or fall over time. I well remember how poorly Truman was thought of in the early 50s. He was pretty much a joke. We know how that view has changed (and rightly so) since then. How about Richard Nixon? Here is the opinion of one observer. www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.nixon09aug09,0,7238133,print.story AzWm Just a couple things on this: Second, Mr. Nixon was always a step ahead in gauging voters' attitudes. The "Silent Majority" coalition he built helped the GOP win seven of 11 presidential elections between 1968 and 2008. Conservatives distrusted Mr. Nixon, but without him there would never have been a President Ronald Reagan.
I completely disagree that without Nixon there wouldn't have been Reagan. The Republican Party in the late '70s was an insurgent movement. It was going against the "pragmatists" who had controlled the party for a long time. Nixon went against it to the extent that the party, under his leadership, developed the "Southern Strategy", but he was a pretty mainstream President and unless the argument is that what he did created a right-wing reaction, I don't see the value of the argument.
Fourth, Mr. Nixon achieved. He launched the war on cancer, created the Environmental Protection Agency, opened the door to China, signed an arms control agreement with the Soviets, desegregated schools (68 percent of black children in the South attended all-black schools in 1968; 8 percent did by the end of 1972) and brought innovative approaches to domestic and foreign policy. He also presided over a GOP not yet skewed toward social conservatism.The last sentence is the most important. In the '70s the Republican Party was still mostly controlled by Eisenhower and Rockefeller Republicans. Nixon set the party on the path to the Southern Strategy, but he did not engage in that WRT foreign affairs. He did engage in it WRT domestic affairs, but nowhere near as much as the Neo-Cons engage in it today. As an example, if China were as closed today as it was when Nixon was in office, what would be the Neo-Con reaction to a President "opening" China? What is their reaction to "opening " Iran? I didn't like Nixon because he continued the Vietnam War for far longer than he should have and because he was a "crook", but in terms of foreign policy, he knew what he was doing far more than the Neo-Cons do today. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Aug 10, 2009 8:08:28 GMT -8
I've always liked Nixon the President. Nixon the man was one sick individual. I would go as far as to say that he was mentally unstable. When you think that everyone is 'out to get you' and that you need to cheat to win an election that was unloseable, a visit from the men in the funny white suits is warranted.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 10, 2009 17:04:47 GMT -8
I've always liked Nixon the President. Nixon the man was one sick individual. I would go as far as to say that he was mentally unstable. When you think that everyone is 'out to get you' and that you need to cheat to win an election that was unloseable, a visit from the men in the funny white suits is warranted. Yes, but . . . Remember the Clinton zipper fiasco? Bill found out that a simple apology and admission that he had acted badly would not play well with the public. Soooo, he lied and lied. (I have always thought that he would have been praised for his honesty and contrition had he just come clean.) Perhaps Nixon was told, or just feared, that admitting that people in his campaign had pulled this stupid break-in would seriously hurt his chances. I know, with McGovern running for the Dems, it's unlikely that Nixon would have lost even if he had fessed up. As with Clinton, I suspect that he would have won at least a few points for candor. Nixon's background was so different from that of JFK. Kennedy enjoyed an over-abundance of wealth and privilege. Nixon's youth was hard-scrabble to say the least. It's a shame he resigned in disgrace. Had he finished his second term without more that the usual political turmoil, he would have earned solid praise in history. The man had a remarkable intellect, certainly far superior to John Kennedy's (and, let it be understood that I admired JFK and still do). AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 11, 2009 4:41:07 GMT -8
I admired and respected President Nixon. The Watergate thing was always a puzzle. It seems in retrospect that just coming clean would have been both the honorable and smart thing to do. Not only was Nixon running against the biggest loser in history, but also he would have been seen in a much better light these many years later.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 11, 2009 16:18:56 GMT -8
I admired and respected President Nixon. The Watergate thing was always a puzzle. It seems in retrospect that just coming clean would have been both the honorable and smart thing to do. Not only was Nixon running against the biggest loser in history, but also he would have been seen in a much better light these many years later. He couldn't come clean because he was too mixed up in it. Does anyone really believe that all he was involved in was the cover-up? I mean really, does anyone believe that Nixon, control freak that he was, had no knowledge of the "dirty tricks" being pulled and could anyone other than Nixon have ordered the CIA and the military to engage in domestic surveillance and the IRS to target Democratic contributors for audits? =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 11, 2009 17:22:27 GMT -8
I admired and respected President Nixon. The Watergate thing was always a puzzle. It seems in retrospect that just coming clean would have been both the honorable and smart thing to do. Not only was Nixon running against the biggest loser in history, but also he would have been seen in a much better light these many years later. He couldn't come clean because he was too mixed up in it. Does anyone really believe that all he was involved in was the cover-up? I mean really, does anyone believe that Nixon, control freak that he was, had no knowledge of the "dirty tricks" being pulled and could anyone other than Nixon have ordered the CIA and the military to engage in domestic surveillance and the IRS to target Democratic contributors for audits? =Bob Well, now we know what you think. Your claim may be correct. How about giving us some facts that back up that claim? AzWm |
|
