Nixonland

My review is in the May Atlantic, and it just went up online. On the off-chance it isn't clear from the piece, I think the book is very, very good: Obviously Rick Perlstein and I have slight, slight ideological differences, but If you think that American history in the second half of the twentieth is relatively boring by world-historical standards - as I often did, sitting through U.S. history classes in high school - then Perlstein is the historian for you. (Though if for some crazy reason you haven't read Before The Storm, that's the place to start.)

Comments

I just finished Elizabeth Drew's new biography about Nixon. What a great book. She destroys the guy.

Posted by Michael C. | April 10, 2008 11:43 AM

Ross says we could have done worse than nixon.
That is very nearly b.s. Read Drew's book.
We could not have done much worse than dick Nixon.
Is ross old enough to remember nixon? has he read about the war?
bebe rebozo?
buy a clue ross. take a class. Read drews book.
talk to somebody in their forties or fifties.
dumb.

Posted by Michael C. | April 10, 2008 11:52 AM

Ross is right; Before the Storm is an outstanding book. It makes one understand the Paul people better as they see themselves as the true heirs to Goldwater. As a Rockefeller-McCain fan the book is rather bracing.

Posted by Jason Reese | April 10, 2008 12:10 PM

If you think that American history in the second half of the twentieth is relatively boring by world-historical standards - as I often did, sitting through U.S. history classes in high school

It's always worth remembering the old apocryphal Chinese curse: "may you live in interesting times."

Boring is boring, but it's better than the alternative.

Posted by right | April 10, 2008 1:04 PM

Right,

Oh, I don't know about that. "Boring" sounds like a trivial concern but the deeper concern is that most of what we understand of as the human virtues can only exist with in opposition to suffering, evil, and adversity. What would courage mean, for example, in a world where there was little to be afraid of? What would self-sacrifice mean in a world where there was no need for sacrifice? George Orwell points out in 'The Road to Wigan Pier' that this is the terrifying and unanswered question posed by modernity, and by late 20th century bourgeois society in particular.

Posted by Hector | April 10, 2008 4:09 PM

Hector,

It depends on what virtues you're talking about. Perhaps struggle and strife are necessary for the Christian virtues, and certain other virtues that involve overcoming oneself or triumphing over others (think of the old question whether Churchill needed WWII to flourish as a statesman).

But many of the ancients saw things otherwise. Aristotle lists courage as the lowest virtue, and a questionable one at that, for many of the same reasons you extol it (it's painful, harsh, and bestial). The Platonic dialogues often show Socrates hinting at the shortcomings of those who define virtue as a manly warlikeness or fierceness in striving or acquiring, namely that these types seek another object (peace or victory or money) that they cannot enjoy.

In this view, virtue manifests itself in a flourishing (not an overcoming) of one's nature, and it seeks goods that can be shared and are ends in themselves (not scare goods that are fought over or sought for the value in acquiring something else). As the Platonic dialogues pointed out, it would be tragic limitation if man found his highest fulfillment in the most unpleasant activities and could not enjoy peace and leisure. And, as Aristotle added by recognizing courage as the first "virtue," these more painful striving virtues may be necessary and may even be a sort of prelude to virtue. But they are hardly the whole story.

Posted by hhk | April 10, 2008 5:14 PM

Nixon was pretty liberal; or put it another way rather Bismarkian in the current context. Assenting to the EPA, the Clean Air Act, detente,
affirmative action, the retreat from Vietnam (which cribbed DeGaulle's path). wage & price controls, retreating from the Gold Standard, Recognition of China; things that seem flawed in retrospect. Fat lot of good that did him in the end.Consequently, Perlstein wants to show Nixon in somewhat of a favorable light. But Nixon as an alternative to an American Vervoerd; maybe a Malan, but Wallace wasn't consistent enough for that. Could Humphrey had prevailed even if he had won; not the way the Democrats were leaning then,
and how that has metastasized to the current day.

Posted by narciso | April 11, 2008 12:55 AM

Yeah, I've always had more sympathy for my friends who are Nixon Republicans than the Reaganite flood that followed. While Nixon's domestic policies were classic on-a-stretcher implementation, as with FDR that beats pure reaction with a nice, sharp stick.

I was amused by the review. It was really very good, until the author started getting all het up about how the author mocked his partisan allies. A good reviewer embraces good critique. Was FDR a barbed, wicked and spiteful man? Hell, yes. He also saved capitalism and won WWII. Was Nixon an evil, dangerous and unstable man? Hell, yes. He also saved racism and finally, a century later, won the Civil War for the Confederates.

Sometimes, kids, your side is wrong. Own up to it when it happens.

Posted by wcw | April 11, 2008 3:33 AM

Anyone know where you can buy _Before the Storm_ for a reasonable price? It's $94 on Amazon.

Posted by Marc | April 11, 2008 3:04 PM

A cynic in an age of zeal, a politician without principles at a moment that valued ideological purity above all, he was too small a man to threaten the republic. His corruptions were too petty; his schemes too penny-ante; and his spirit too cowardly, too self-interested, too venal to make him truly dangerous

This passage stood out to me when I read this review (in the actual magazine a week or 2 ago) and the more I think of it, the more I think it is wrong. Many horrible dictators have been petty and cynical, motivated only by paranoia and a craving for power, not any fanatical ideology. The fact that Nixon did not become a tyrannical dictator can mostly be attributed to the strength of the democratic political traditions in the United States.

Posted by peep | April 11, 2008 3:45 PM

I don't think Nixon aspired to be a tyrannical dictator, peep.

Posted by Asher | April 12, 2008 1:10 AM

Isaac Chotiner over at the Plank asks whether Nixon was really better than Humphrey or Rockefeller:

But could we really have done worse than Nixon? Were Hubert Humphrey and Nelson Rockefeller really "the abyss?" Neither one would have been an ideal president, to be sure, but when you think about Nixon/Kissinger policy in not just Vietnam but also Cambodia, Turkey, Cyprus, Indonesia, Pakistan, Chile, etc, etc, etc, well, it's pretty hard to imagine anyone worse.

I'd echo this. As inept and worn out as the Establishment (in both parties) was, it still seems like any plausible establishment candidate would have likely been not as bad as Nixon.

Posted by John | April 12, 2008 5:55 PM

Well, Kissinger was from the Rockefeller camp, and the Rockefeller's were tied into all those
areas. Cambodia was a safe area for the VietCong, thanks to Sihanouk's inept actions, and his ignorance of Viet/Cambodian emnities. Turkey was likely to stay the same; the competing claims over
Cyprus, are nearly eternal. India, was still to left to warrant support. Indonesia, for historical
reasons, would have basically acted the same way. Chile was a contentious issue, back in '64.

On the wider point of a Humphrey Vietnam policy, we can only go by the practices of the Johnson holdovers in Nixon. Halperin was clamoring for
a coalition goverment with the VC, Davidson tried to find Common ground with an enemy. Wells and Lake, weren't even aware of elements like the Khmer Rouge; otherwise they would apologize for
their May '70 grandstanding. One recalls that only Negroponte, at the Paris Peace talks, had
any consideration of the fate of the RVN regime; and Kissinger exiled him to Thessaloniki and Guayaquil for his insolence. Would Halperin have taken policy differences so personally as to give
assent to Agee's 'burn an agent' campaign as he did at the DC ACLU office and IPS. Halperin by the way, is VP of the Obama friendly Soros funded
Center for American Progress, which espouses other ludicrous notions for today; like abandoning
Iraq to AQ, acknowleding Ahmadinejad'scomplaints,
etc. Years later, Vance would apply the same policies in Shah's Iran, clearing the way for the Ayatollah; unwittingly empowering the first waves of international jihadism. Lake would push for the fall of Somoza, counting on the goodwill of the moderates among the Sandinista's original junta.

Posted by narciso | April 12, 2008 7:21 PM

Call me insane but I just finished Conrad Blacks bio of Nixon and found it to be a balanced rendering of the man. I confess to be fascinated by Nixon and his contradictions. The mass of insecurities that plague an obviously brilliant man. Nixon's political career and public life spanned the entire Cold War era, there was no other major figure that was on the stage as long as he was.

Posted by theCardinal | April 14, 2008 9:59 PM