Kennedy Versus Nixon

"Nixon in a pantsuit" - that's what Andrew called Hillary a while back. And from the Clintonian embrace of the Southern strategy to the Kennedy comparisons and the Kennedy family endorsements Obama is racking up, the Democratic race looks more and more like a JFK-Nixon contest every day.

Framed in these terms, the choice sounds like a no-brainer. And sure, if we were electing a symbolic Head of State, someone charged with delivering ringing speeches and presiding over ceremonial events and generally embodying the Spirit of America while playing only a modest role in actually governing the country, then it would be easy call. But for the Presidency as it actually exists, I’m not sure. That Kennedy was a far worse than President than his golden legend would lead one to believe is of the few points where I find myself agreeing with Christopher Hitchens, and by the same token I think that while Nixon was ultimately a disaster in the White House, he had real strengths as a chief executive that shouldn’t be too quickly dismissed. So if the choice is between a Tricky Dick without the same degree of paranoia and simmering resentment (and no, I don’t think Hillary approaches Nixonian levels of derangement on either count) and a JFK without the Addison’s Disease, the prostitutes and the Mob connections – well, at the very least it leaves me more ambivalent than the contrast of Camelot and Watergate might lead you to expect.

(And yes, of course, this is somewhat silly and reductionist. And yes, I’m playing devil’s advocate – literally, if you share Andrew’s take on Hillary. But somebody has to do it! Are there any pundits out there who haven’t turned on the Clintons yet?)

Comments

Taibbi’s take is a bit too cynical for my taste. But it’s interesting and right on point …

Posted by jason | January 28, 2008 8:04 PM

Nixon was "ultimately" a disaster? But "he had real strengths as a chief executive that shouldn’t be too quickly dismissed"

What, pray tell, were those strengths? Wage and price controls. Allowing inflation to get out of control for the sake of an election? Out of control spending? (Nixon was, overall, a disaster on the economy.) How about that criminal behavior in the White House?

If JFK's presidency is highly overrated -- a point with which I agree -- no serious and objective analyst would claim it was anywhere near as bad as Nixon's tenure.

Foreign policy is often mentioned as Nixon's strong point, but that aspect of Nixon's presidency is as often overrated as is JFK's entire presidency. See William Bundy's "A Tangled Web."

Nixon wasn't "ultimately" a disaster. He was a disaster long before he left office and not just because of Watergate.

Posted by Pincher Martin | January 28, 2008 8:18 PM

I'm not a pundit, but I haven't turned. I mean, I'd prefer Obama, but 95% of the controversey in South Carolina was ginned up by the press.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | January 28, 2008 8:29 PM

Pincher Martin writes: "If JFK's presidency is highly overrated -- a point with which I agree -- no serious and objective analyst would claim it was anywhere near as bad as Nixon's tenure."

But, but, but, he had sex with women he wasn't married to!

This is the same template conservatives will use over the next several decades as they try to make the idiotically incomprehensible case that Dumbya was somehow a "better president" than Clinton was. It's like claiming that a massive heart attack is "better" than a broken fingernail, but that won't stop cons.

Of course Kennedy is overrated, but then again he didn't exactly get a chance to "extend his legacy" the way Nixon and Dumbya did, which may be why people remember him kindly.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 28, 2008 8:31 PM

Come on Ross.

That was lame lame lame. Sully doesn't deserve amplification for his anti-Hillary snit.

And to imply any comparison at all between the mild push back Bill has been giving Obama, to the systematic abuses of the College Republican Gladiator academy is a disservice to what we are all fighting for on the liberal side.

Let me refresh you Ross

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM0zJl9Bxk8

Here is a vidoe of Walter Cronkite handing off to Dan Rather doing a story on the Nixon re-election campaign. In the basement at the end in RNC headquarters is a young Karl Rove president of College Republicanas. This massive machine adding new facets generation after generation is what beenfited the rise of the disasterous "conservative movement".

That same movement which gunned for Bill mercilessly for the entire 90s. That has been gunning for Hillary and will gun for ANY DEMOCRATIC leader.

It's what's so phony about the whole Kennedy endorsement to put an end to 'old politics'. If Kennedy really had any power what so-ever to turnoff the republican spigot that has been flooding congres for the last 30 years he would have. It is in fact as disengenious to announce the era of patisanship over as it was for Bush II to put on the flight suit and declare the end of the Iraq war.

Posted by smacfarl | January 28, 2008 8:55 PM

BTW Ross.

Even tho I am oppposed to the position you have taken here, I have really enjoyed your commentary on the Table.

We can always use more table! MMMM Table!!!

Posted by smacfarl | January 28, 2008 9:08 PM

Listen to the tapes again Ross. Nixon was worse than a disaster, he perverted the office and inspired no one in the process.

Posted by JC | January 28, 2008 9:12 PM

Dispatch from a Middle-Aged Mom:

Okay, I think I get it now. I understand from the media and the very liberal wing of the Democratic Party that there are certain things I’m not allowed to discuss regarding Barack Obama. Let me see if I have it straight:

I’m not allowed to call him young. I’m not allowed to call him eloquent. I’m not allowed to call him articulate (although I am allowed to compliment his oratory skills). I’m certainly not allowed to call him clean (a la Joe Biden). I’m not allowed to talk about his “present” votes in the Illinois Senate. I’m not allowed to talk about the times he “bungled” his votes there. I’m not allowed to talk about his race. I’m not allowed to talk about his contributors or his funny real estate dealings. I’m not allowed to talk about his support for nuclear energy or about the contributions he’s received from nuclear energy companies.

I’m not allowed to call him inexperienced – I’m certainly not allowed to call him inexperienced on the federal level. I’m not allowed to comment on the fact that he served only two years in his first term as Senator before running for President. I’m not allowed to call him unseasoned. I’m not allowed to suggest that being a state legislator may not be comparable to the skills needed to being President.

I’m not allowed to bring up the fact that he didn’t actually vote one way or the other on the Iraq War, since he wasn’t in the Senate at the time. I’m not allowed to bring up his subsequent voting record in the Senate on Iraq, which is identical to a certain other person running for the Democratic nomination.

I’m not allowed to point out that I don’t really know a lot about Senator Obama, because I’ll be yelled at that I need to read his book. But if I read his autobiography, I’m not allowed to mention anything in there that may reflect poorly on decisions he made as a youth. I am allowed to mention that he grew up abroad as a child, but I’m not allowed to talk about the schools he attended there.

It’s also off-limits to talk about his religion or the church he belongs to or his superior dancing abilities. All these things are apparently code words that feed into the politics of division. I get it now – thanks for letting me know.

There are a few other things – let me see if I can remember all of them. I’m not allowed to ask Senator Obama about his “politics of unity” and how that is supposed to work. I’ve never seen such a phenomenon in all my life (or in any American history book), but apparently I’m infected with cynicism. I’m NEVER allowed to ask Senator Obama about any statements he’s made that may have implied nice things about Republicans, Republican ideas, or a certain Republican president. That’s a no-no.

Here are the things I am allowed to say about Senator Obama, a man I hadn’t even heard of until about nine months ago. I am supposed to compare him to the following people: Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, President Kennedy, and Robert Kennedy, just to name a few. (I am never allowed to mention Lyndon B. Johnson in his presence. Got that.) I need to bone up on the phrase “transformative presidency” and start tossing it around more in conversation.

On the other hand, I am allowed to refer to Senator Clinton in the following way (I’ve collected quite a few pertinent comments from the Internet). I’m allowed to call her the “b” word. I am allowed to pick on her appearances and her clothes at all times. I’m also allowed to call her a witch and a queen and a liar and even evil – I can take my pick. Hillary’s experience as First Lady is inconsequential – I get that now. I am not allowed to think that she learned anything other than smiling and waving during her eight years in the White House and eight years as the First Lady of Arkansas. (I keep forgetting that one learns much more about life and the world living abroad as a child than being the wife of a U.S. governor or President. Sorry about that.)

I am not allowed to like Hillary Clinton because she’s a woman and I’m a woman. (I keep messing that one up, but I’m going to try harder from now on.) I’m not allowed to
take heart in her two Senate victories in New York – I guess I didn’t realize that they don’t really count for much. I am supposed to constantly denigrate her for a variety of sins, particularly the sin of remaining the wife of Bill Clinton. The biggest sin Hillary has committed, though, is being too political. I didn’t realize that being political is anathema to the political process -- I still have a lot to learn!

I’ve never quite understood the arguments about “political correctness” before – now I do, and I’m studying really hard to learn this new language. In sum, if I learn what not to say about Obama and refuse to ask any hard questions about his record, can I be a media pundit or liberal blogger too? Let me know asap – thanks!

Posted by Lisa | January 28, 2008 10:09 PM

Lisa,
You can say whatever you want. Nobody is stopping you. Your persecution complex is weird.

Posted by Kay | January 28, 2008 10:47 PM

Lisa, just so you know, I'm copying and saving your post to my hard drive for future reference. That was the most spot-on description of the absurd norms that have been governing this campaign that I've seen so far. Seriously - your comment traces the contours of the (old and 'new') media coverage of this campaign with absolute precision. (I know it might sound like I'm being sarcastic, because all blog comments sound intrinsically sarcastic for some reason, at least when you're saying something nice, but I'm being sincere - it was a really, really good post.)

One of the things I've been most surprised by during this campaign is the way bloggers have unhesitatingly signed on to the dominant anti-Clinton, pro-Obama narrative without ever really stopping and considering whether or not it is actually true. It's really appalling, the casual nature with which it is declared that Clinton is "playing the race card" or employing a "Southern strategy." That's a pretty heinous thing to accuse somebody of, and you shouldn't do it without being damn sure you've got the goods.

But you know what? When you actually look at the 'evidence', the whole thing evaporates. The Obama campaign (and the media) were the ones who initially 'injected' race into this campaign. Everyone's bitching and moaning about Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson comment, but no one's even considering the substantive point he was making, which is a legitimate and by no means racist one: namely, Obama won South Carolina because of the overwhelming support of blacks, which in that primary made up HALF of the votes, a phenomenon that will take place almost nowhere else. Among whites, Obama was outpaced by Hillary AND Edwards (even though by this point he is a clear also-ran).

Clinton's point is well taken: Obama draws his support from a narrow demographic (African-Americans, and young people). He's very similar to Huckabee in this way. When that demographic happens to be represented disproportionately in a particular state, he does very, very well.

What we've seen this campaign season is that gender and racial identity drive a lot of votes. Obama appeals to black people and people under thirty. Clinton appeals to women, older people, and Hispanics. Look at the electorate and tell me which is better.

Posted by Jason C. | January 28, 2008 11:29 PM

Lisa and Jason C. the same person posting under a different name or just suffering from the same delusional syndrome? Discuss.

More over-rated - JFK or St. Ronnie? Discuss.

Posted by tiparillo | January 29, 2008 12:11 AM

I’m not allowed to talk about his support for nuclear energy or about the contributions he’s received from nuclear energy companies.

Really? Great! Maybe Obama is better than I thought.

Posted by Adam Greenwood | January 29, 2008 12:12 AM

This is far and away the best execution of talking points I have seen from the Clinton astroturf operation. Kudos, Lisa and Jason C.

Posted by Ryan W. | January 29, 2008 2:36 AM

It seems that Jason and Lisa are masks for the head of the New York NOW chapter. Perhaps they should get out more and smile a little at life?

Posted by sashaqz | January 29, 2008 3:07 AM

And yes, I’m playing devil’s advocate – literally, if you share Andrew’s take on Hillary. But somebody has to do it! Are there any pundits out there who haven’t turned on the Clintons yet?

Ye gods, no kidding! Sully and Reihan have become unreadable to the point where they make me more likely to want to vote for her. Even Yglesias is starting to slip, although like you he mostly does Ivy-league snark rather than vicious hatred. TV, of course, is completely out of the question.

Posted by gustav | January 29, 2008 6:32 AM

One of the most interesting characters in the Nixon saga was H.R. Haldeman, Nixon's Chief of Staff, who joined Nixon after 20 years at J. Walter Thompson. Haldeman and his longtime side-kick, John Erlichman, brought something new to the White House, a very modern sense of spin, media intimidation, secrecy, and the creation of the infamous Enemies List. Haldeman's book, "The Ends of Power", is quite a read.
Unfortunately, as Andrew Sullivan writes, there are discomforting similarities between the Clinton adversarial way of viewing politics, and the Nixon's. A key Nixon advisor: Lee Atwater.

Posted by fougasseu | January 29, 2008 9:04 AM

Lisa and Jason C. the same person posting under a different name or just suffering from the same delusional syndrome? Discuss.

I might be lame, but I'm not quite that lame, not yet anyway.

More over-rated - JFK or St. Ronnie? Discuss.

RWR, but only because the paeans to him are so spectacularly over the top when in reality his was just a mediocre reign, with not much in the way of a lasting legacy (era of big government not so over). I realize a lot of people think that Reagan brought about the collapse of the USSR by the sheer size of his enormous right-wing testicles but the truth is that (a) it's not yet clear how desirable it was for the USSR to break up the way it did (G.H.W. Bush opposed it at the time) and (b) wingnuts will simultaneously attribute the demise of the USSR to Reagan AND assert that communism as a system was inherently flawed and therefore "failed," or "didn't work," which if you think about are incompatible propositions.

JFK gets recognized mostly, I think, for his image, the way he "made people feel," which apparently it is really important to some people that their president make them feel good about themselves and their country, as they have no other source of self-esteem. This of course masks the fact that his presidency was basically spent skirting absolute disaster, and sooner or later his luck would have run out.

Posted by Jason C. | January 29, 2008 11:52 AM

>>>Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson comment, but no one's even considering the substantive point he was making, which is a legitimate and by no means racist one: namely, Obama won South Carolina because of the overwhelming support of blacks, which in that primary made up HALF of the votes, a phenomenon that will take place almost nowhere else. Among whites, Obama was outpaced by Hillary AND Edwards (even though by this point he is a clear also-ran).>>>

This whole way of looking at it is so slanted towards race as to call itself into question. Each candidate won their own demographic handily. Edwards won white men, Clinton won white women, Obama won black men. Barack also won black women by nearly the same margin. He also pulled more from either of the others' demographic than anyone else did. I believe he won more white men than Hillary, and more white women than Edwards.

Of course the smaller minority is going to be more enthused by identity politics, that's only natural--you'd feel it too if you were there. But quite contrary to Lisa's "spot on" post that you saved and extended upon, Obama displays the most broad and diverse support of any of the three major candidates. That is a statistical fact. He also pulls more independents and obviously engenders a lot more enthusiastic support, which is probably a drawback on the internet but will help incredibly in actual organizing and campaigning in the general.

I find the whole spirit of resentment of the "preferential treatment" that Clinton supporters claim he is getting ridiculous. First, that is totally in the eye of the beholder. Everyone thinks they get shafted by "the media." Secondly, if he is more popular with the press, for whatever reason, that is an asset to you and your party, not a drawback. To extend this figment of your imagination to the idea that you are upset that you spposedly "can't say" things that you want to (and just did) is nothing but white martyrdom, the kind I became so sick of in the anti-pc movements of college republicans and other know-nothings. We aren't impressed when you break out of your terrible oppression to go all Howard Beale on us.

The rest of us will decide how big of an idiot you are making of yourself, and how it reflects on your candidate. That's your right, and that's our right.

And BTW, I think Hillary is an outstanding and intelligent woman for whom I would not be embarrassed in the least to vote if it comes to that. I don't like the Bill package deal, or a split executive, but I'll probably live with it. She's simply not as good as Barack in my opinion in judgement, character, electability, issues, or inspirational vision. She is a hell of a street fighter, and that wouldn't be a terrible second option.

Posted by Bupalos | January 29, 2008 1:35 PM

I’m not allowed to talk about his support for nuclear energy or about the contributions he’s received from nuclear energy companies.

Yeah, this is one thing that makes me think Obama is not purely a "unity, not division, twirling, twirling into the future" gas, but might be willing to actually look at ideas he "shouldn't" once in a blue moon.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | January 30, 2008 1:52 PM

Lisa is spot on.

never mind sashaqz: she always accuses everyone who likes hillary of being a republican or she talks about how much punctuation matters if she really doesn't agree with you.

Accusing one blogger of being another blogger also seems like an impossible thing to prove.
Do some of you obama supporters actually blog under more than one name: that's pretty funny.

saying each candidate won their group in SC no longer applies to any argument or point in as much as elvis edwards has left the building and no one can win the nomination just by win his or her group AND no one should want to.

SC wasn't a microcosm and asserts very little about Obama's ability to pull voters.
Iowa his neigboring state proves very little either.
One would have to say that NH NV and FL show the best of Obama's promise about pulling voters but then he lost all three.
But those same states show Hillary's ability to draw voters
So it won't be easy for either of them.

As a dad of a ten year old girl who is smart and full of promise Hillary's being female is profoundly important: she will go vote with me on tuesday, will go in the both as she has since she began walking, and she will get to pull the lever on my behalf for what might be the first female president: this is too little discussed AND it really does mattter.

Posted by Michael c. | January 31, 2008 11:01 AM