July 22, 2006
Richard Nixon Reconsidered Posted by Joshua Zeitz at 11:30 AM EST Fred Schwarz fears the world is in a hell of a state when John Steele Gordon and I agree with each other, as is most definitely the case on the question of gay marriage. What led us to this common ground was my anecdote of a few days ago about Richard Nixon, who predicted privately that gay marriage would be uncontroversial by the year 2000. Of Richard Nixon, Mr. Gordon wrote: “It is, I think, further evidence that Nixon was a remarkably complicated and conflicted figure, essentially tragic in nature. Shakespeare, I imagine, would have found him one of the most interesting twentieth-century American Presidents.” So we are agreed on a second point. Nixon is impossible to fathom. I stumbled across the Nixon-gay marriage anecdote in the course of background reading for a book I’m currently researching on America’s encounter with the turbulent 1970s. Nixon, who served as President from 1969 to 1974, figures prominently in the opening chapters. Thus far, it’s been great fun, but not at all an easy task, to figure him out. A good place to begin is David Greenberg’s fine book Nixon's Shadow,
which traces Nixon’s many—often contradictory—representations in the popular imagination. As Greenberg explains, a generation of political historians in the 1990s have largely rehabilitated Nixon’s reputation, finding much to be admired in his domestic and foreign policies. Some of Nixon’s achievements include a vigorous affirmative-action program targeting firms that contracted with the federal government (and unions whose employees worked on federally funded projects); a somewhat less aggressive but partially effective Justice Department campaign to bring court-ordered desegregation to Southern school districts; creation of the EPA and OSHA; detente with the Soviet Union; open relations with China; the SALT I agreements limiting the buildup of Soviet and American nuclear arsenals; and a new policy toward Native Americans that rejected the old, discredited assimilationist model in favor of increased tribal autonomy. But there is a sharp distinction between moderation and competence, and some of the historians who have sought to rehabilitate Nixon may be filtering their view of him through the lens of the “Reagan revolution.” Nixon was no right-wing ideologue—that much is true. But that doesn’t mean he was an effective administrator or a grand practitioner of international diplomacy. (The latter is an image he studiously cultivated for himself in the 1980s and 1990s). Nixon consolidated power at the White House, by and large cutting cabinet officials (and hundreds of high-level executive department experts) out of the decision-making loop and leaving important decisions to a small number of West Wing aides. Such heavy-handedness cost him important policy expertise and led to considerable gaffes, as when he and Henry Kissinger unknowingly surrendered important advantages during the SALT negotiations; when the administration unwittingly allowed the Soviets to corner the world grain market, which exacerbated inflationary pressures on the American economy; and when the President drew out negotiations with North Vietnam until 1973, ultimately agreeing to terms that had more or less been on the table for four years, but at great financial and human cost to the United States. Nixon’s disregard for Congress also led to some of his high-profile legislative failures. Top on that list was the administration’s inability to secure passage of the Family Assistance Plan, a bold initiative that would have replaced America’s complicated, motley collection of welfare programs with a “negative income tax” (a term Nixon carefully avoided) and a guaranteed income for poor families. The plan would have covered far more poor families than did AFDC, and it included incentives for work and training. But Nixon shunned House and Senate leaders from both parties and was unable to overcome bipartisan opposition to the bill. Even if Nixon’s policy accomplishments had been impressive—and my impression thus far is that they were good but not stellar—Greenberg makes a convincing case that Presidents are more than the sum of their policies. Nixon brought a toxic brand of politics to the public sphere. His White House tapes reveal an alarming level of criminal conspiracy, crude prejudices toward Jews, women, and African-Americans, an obsession with vengeance, and utter disdain for the free press. Had Nixon kept these notions to himself, that would be one thing. But he ordered illegal wiretaps of reporters and political opponents; used the IRS, CIA, and FBI to hound administration critics; attempted to defraud the federal treasury by backdating some of his personal-income-tax statements; laundered illegal campaign contributions through foreign banks; and undertook a deeply divisive campaign to polarize white and black Americans, both North and South. In light of all of this, it’s hard to follow the advice that Nixon’s Attorney General, John Mitchell, once gave to a group of civil rights leaders: “Watch what we do, rather than what we say.” To get back to John Steele Gordon’s point, indeed, Nixon was a remarkably complicated character. It’s a challenge to synthesize his presidential career. Perhaps my friends at American Heritage have some ideas.
| 
