Thursday, January 29, 2009

Exhuming Nixon

When I was a kid, it was a given that Nixon was the devil. Even my dad, who has voted republican at least since Reagan/Carter and who has been staunchly GOP ever since, absolutely hated this man (I think he may have actually voted for Carter in 1976 out of anger for Ford's pardon of RMN, but I've never dared ask. The thought of my father voting for Carter is just too painful). From a young age, I had an impression of Nixon as this mean old man with greasy hair who was somehow completely responsible for the Vietnam War, was the mastermind of Watergate, and had a potty mouth to boot. What more did one need to know?

But the more I read, the question I'm asking now is "what did I really know, and when did people start lying to me?" Look at Nixon's accomplishments. A steady reduction of troops from Vietnam; normalization with China; the SALT I and II nuclear missile reduction treaties with Russia; The Paris Peace Accords, which brought ceasefire to the war Kennedy started and LBJ bungled--and which would have guaranteed a free South Vietnam if not for Watergate and its aftermath; Substantial cuts in income taxes; saving Israel in their hour of need by cutting through red tape to send aid during the Yom Kippour ambush. By this last deed, Nixon essentially single handedly prevented Israel from being erased from existence. This curriculum vitae would be impressive for any president, but throw in a hostile media and congress comprised of enemy combatants, and the formidable skills and resolve of Richard Nixon become that much more apparent.

Look at the man himself. Made himself out of nothing. A successful lawyer. A war hero. An intellectual. A longsuffering public servant, whose record of service included terms in the House of Representatives, the Senate and two terms as Vice President before being elected President in 1968. If fidelity still means anything, it is worth noting that so far as we know, Nixon was faithful to his wife--whereas predecessors LBJ, JFK, FDR and Woodrow Wilson, and future President William J. Clinton, were not. (Nixon was something else these men were not: a Republican. Coincidence?) I realize that the Clinton years have taught us that extramarital affairs are something merely to be tut tutted, just "hanky panky;" however, Nixon's example in this regard restored honor to the highest office in the land, whose prior two occupants had been serial, if not pathological, philanderers.

Now as for his failures, and yes, misdeeds: I realize you can't exonerate the illicit goings on of one President's administration by comparing it to the shady activities of another. But when I look at what Nixon's Plumbers actually did, and what Nixon did once he learned the details of their activities, I do find myself asking how Nixon was any worse than several of his predecessors. FDR used the FBI, IRS and other government agencies to get dirt on his enemies and to punish them. JFK used the CIA quite cavalierly to spy on political enemies also allowed his brother Bobby to use his office as Attorney General to punish adversaries. LBJ would curl up at night with the latest trashy tidbits on his own enemies, compiled for him courtesy of the FBI. LBJ also used his power to quash an investigation into the corruption of his closest aide (whose homosexuality would also have been exposed). Previous presidents used wiretaps, previous presidents ordered illegal activity, previous presidents secretly recorded conversations. By contrast it must be noted that Nixon did not order the break-in of Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office or of the Watergate--in fact Nixon didn't even know about these activities until after they had happened. Obviously Nixon was still responsible, the buck did stop at his desk. But it was his handling of the aftermath, not ordering the crimes themselves, that forever tarnished the President.

It is still surprising to me how much mileage Nixon's detractors get out of his now famous proclivity for profanity. I realize it shocked the nation to hear all of those "expletive deleteds" at the time. But compare his colorful use of language to the manner in which we now know that Johnson or Kennedy spoke behind closed doors, and we see that Nixon is in good company. Still, curse words or no, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that Nixon would be damaged by the tapes once their existence came into the light. It was, however, completely reasonable for Nixon to cite Executive Privilege when the tapes were demanded. A President needs to be able to carry on conversations with his advisers (conversations of which the public does not need to know the intimate details) without fear that anything he says will be printed in the papers or used as ammunition by a hostile opposition--both of which happened to Nixon. If Republicans had controlled Congress at the time, perhaps Executive Privilege would have stood, and Nixon's presidency could have survived (and South Vietnam would be free). Likewise, if the media had covered for Nixon the way they did for Kennedy (whose infidelity and habitual drug use, both of which were occurring on a near-daily basis, came out posthumously), "Watergate" would now be an historical aside. But, in order for the media to have covered for Nixon, he'd have to have been a Democrat, wouldn't he?

Instead a left wing ideologue named Archibald Cox, a leering and jubilant Congress driven by Senator Sam Ervin (D-N.C., the same Sam Ervin who helped LBJ bury his own potential scandal) and a viscerally liberal media filled with an irrational hatred for Nixon, formed the lethal synergy that succeeded in destroying him. The showdown with Cox, culminating in the Saturday Night Massacre, prompted an outcry for impeachment. Once Nixon allowed transcripts of the tapes to be released, it became clear that Nixon was complicit in the cover up of Watergate--his talk of "get[ting] a million dollars" for the men who had been arrested was particularly damaging--and his impeachment was pretty much inevitable. The revelation of 18+ minutes of deleted tape, and that dreadful photograph of Rose Marie Woods straining for her telephone while keeping her foot on the erase button, was a sadly amusing epitaph of a Presidency brought down by scandal.

But as was the case with President Truman, Nixon was largely brought down by goings on in his administration that were unbeknownst to himself. And the things he did know about, and his efforts to cover up and obstruct justice, are no more egregious than crimes or excesses committed by other presidents who had the blessing of complicit media and Congresses. That is not to say Nixon deserved to go unpunished. I am no moral relativist: attempting to obstruct the investigation of a special prosecutor is obstruction of justice, and impeachment would have been an appropriate response... something Democrats would learn to appreciate in 1998 when their guy perjured himself and was subsequently impeached. But compared to Presidents before and after, Nixon was no worse a man, and certainly not the Capraesque villain so many claim he was.

I think, were it not for Watergate and its aftermath, Nixon would be remembered as one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century. I think this might also have been the case if Watergate and Nixon's role had come out after he had left office. To a certain degree, he was in the wrong place at the wrong point in history (note that Reagan survived Iran-Contra unscathed), with too strong a utilitarian bent. Hopefully, given the anesthesia and sedative of time, future generations can look at the Richard Nixon objectively and appreciate his greatness, not just his weakness.

1 comment:

Kathy said...

Unfortunately, Nixon's behind the scenes views were often never reported. My big problem was his stance on population control. See http://www.population-security.org/mumf-93-01.htm