2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumRichard Nixon, hero of the American Left
He's justifiably reviled by historians, but Nixon's politics were far more progressive than we give him creditBY EMMETT RENSIN
This article originally appeared on the L.A. Review of Books.
Sometimes I have succeeded and sometimes I have failed, but always I have taken heart from what Theodore Roosevelt once said about the man in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again because there is not effort without error and shortcoming, but who does actually strive to do the deed, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumphs of high achievements and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly.
Richard Nixon, August 8, 1974
ON APRIL 27, 1994, outside a small home in Yorba Linda, California, President William Jefferson Clinton delivered the final eulogy at the funeral of Richard Milhous Nixon. At first, the speech seemed to abide by the unspoken rules of decorum that had informed every eulogy before it: praise the former president in broad terms; highlight his triumphs in foreign policy. Pay homage to his enviable family life. Do not, under any circumstances, say Watergate.
Do not talk politics. Do not talk resignation. China? Sure. Alger Hiss? Why not? A joke about Dick Nixons late-in-life affinity for rap music? Thatd be okay. Any mention of the downfall that made the 37th president a synonym for corruption and a pariah even within his own party for the last 20 years of his life? Might dampen the mood best to avoid it.
For almost 10 minutes, Clinton did just that. He praised Nixons love for his wife Pat, for his valuable counsel to every subsequent administration including Clintons own in matters of national security, for his many goodwill trips overseas. By all accounts, it looked like he was just trying to get through this thing with as little pain as possible and get back to DC. Then something happened: Clinton broke the rules. Halfway through a paragraph that began like yet another iteration of the deceaseds remarkable family life, the president paused. With a tilt in his voice that almost betrayed what he knew he was about to say, he continued:
Today is a day for his family, his friends, and his nation, Clinton intoned, to remember Nixons life in totality. To them let us say: may the day of judging President Nixon on anything less than his entire life and career come to a close.
full article
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/05/i_was_a_nixon_junkie_defending_the_20th_centurys_most_misunderstood_president_partner/
unrepentant progress
(611 posts)Nixon: The man who did a lot of very good things for very wrong reasons, and some very bad things for even worse reasons.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)His paranoia was legendary, but most of his domestic polices would be reviled by today's Repiglicans.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)and then count from Reagan to Obama, you get to the same number of years from last year of that Prez to the first year of each of these.
Nixon was the last Republican to serve during that era of Democratic dominance, so by then the consensus was over to the left. Martha Mitchell was quoted by Hunter Thompson in Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 as saying "This country's going so far to the right you won't even recognize it". She was right.
Obama will be (fearless prediction coming) the last Democratic president to serve in this era of Republican dominance. Reverse that Martha Mitchell quote. That's where we're headed.
DavidDvorkin
(19,406 posts)PDittie
(8,322 posts)If Hilary Clinton taps a Latino -- say, one of the Castros in Texas -- the GOP won't have a sniff at the White House until 2032. They may win the Senate in 2014, but after that, they will continue to destroy themselves and fail in 2016 of their own volition. Beyond that they will simply have to rethink their existence.
I think '16 will see another chapter in Democratic (perhaps not liberal or progressive) renaissance. And the progress we make depends on how much to the left we can pull the Democratic Party. History shows not much... but that's still the task at hand.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)there has been a backswing since then. The right is smart enough to get their wars in without a draft. There is not a huge number of young people specifically at risk for the draft for a questionable war.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)I hope you're referring to the political system, not the majority (on some issues, the vast majority) of Americans.
treestar
(82,383 posts)No one can decide how they vote?
The voters were not forced to elect Reagan and the others, they let themselves fall for that crap
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)And of that half, no more than 60 percent voted for Reagan in 1984. That's 30 percent of the adult population.
In other words, 70 percent of the adult population did NOT vote for Reagan.
treestar
(82,383 posts)They have the chance to vote. They could have turned out and prevented Reagan and other Republicans from winning the seats they won.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)..are considerably poorer and more likely to be members of racial or ethnic minority groups than voters, right?
treestar
(82,383 posts)What kind of excuse is that? If they are being blocked that is one thing. That's why we have poll watchers, etc. Republicans cheat. But it doesn't explain that high a percentage.
It is taking victimhood way too easily to just refuse to vote because you are poor or minority. Then you are the victim of yourself. You can't depend on right wing white people to change their vote to do the right thing by you. That would be foolish.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)From March 2009:
In last years presidential election, as many as three million registered voters were not allowed to cast ballots and millions more chose not to because of extremely long lines and other frustrating obstacles. Ever since the 2000 election in Florida, the serious flaws in the voting system have been abundantly clear. More than eight years later, Congress must finally deliver on its promise of electoral reform.
At a hearing last week, the Senate Rules Committee released a report sponsored by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the sorry state of voting. It said that administrative barriers, such as error-filled voting lists or wrongful purges of voter rolls prevented as many as three million registered voters from casting ballots. Another two million to four million registered voters were discouraged from even trying to vote because of difficulty obtaining an absentee ballot, voter ID issues and other problems.
More: http://voteraction.org/news-article/2009/still-broken
Also, from 2007:
snip;
Registering poor people and minorities has long been on the agenda of civil-rights and progressive groups. More than one out of four voting-age citizens-more than 50 million Americans-are unregistered. In 2002, 80 percent of families with incomes above $75,000 voted regularly, compared with 25 percent of families with incomes below $10,000, according to the Census Bureau. Most poor Americans don't vote because they see politicians as unresponsive to their needs or perspectives. Moreover, minority voters have long faced obstacles-literacy tests, poll taxes, intimidation, threats, and violence.
Poor people, and blacks and Hispanics in particular, tend to vote for candidates who favor redistributionist policies, such as high taxes on the rich, raising the minimum wage, government-supported job training, and universal health-care. And they typically don't vote Republican. So schemes to suppress voting by minorities are standard equipment in the Republican tool box.
More: http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/150/mockthevote.html
The Vietnam War and the draft were a huge factor in politics then.
I'd personally be a lot more motivated to be political if my life was so directly at stake.
CTyankee
(63,771 posts)I really thought that I would never detest ANY politician more. I have come to see the folly of that sentiment. And it truly saddens me...
Addison
(299 posts)"When I was kid they told me anyone could grow up to become President. I'm beginning to think it's true."
The thing I like best about Nixon is he had the decency to resign.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)That's how far right repubs have moved... In a few more years they'll eclipse Reagan, too....
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)It still amazes me how few people can connect those dots.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)struggle4progress
(118,041 posts)without political talent. But for him, politics involved quite a lot of dirty tricks -- that included stunts like once hiring actors who put on big fake beards and went door to door with phony Russian accents, asking voters to vote for his opponent in the race -- so the old nickname "Tricky Dick" was well earned
There's no question he was smart in some ways. But he also lied constantly; and his Administration was corrupt: some Federal agency phone numbers were rerouted to ring business lobby telephones.He had no qualms about unleashing the full power of the Federal government against his political enemies: people forget that in Nixon's day, high profile Nixon opponents were targeted by the IRS, for example. He helped forge the modern Republican party by recruiting angry Southern racists as Republican voters. He promised in 1968 to end the war in Vietnam, and then instead secretly escalated it by invading nearby countries
He was an opportunist from beginning to end. He rose to national prominence in the McCarthy era by red-baiting, and he continued to red-bait throughout his career. Had anyone else tried to open relations with China before him, he would have undercut the effort with his signature charges that so-and-so was a communist. He was a racist and an antisemite. And I can't remember any other President instructing a lawyer to argue in court that "he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment"
Maybe it is tempting to attribute to Nixon the legislation Congress sent him, but it actually shows a profound ignorance of US legislative process. It was a different time. There were more liberals in Congress then, and Nixon (as a talented politician) wasn't going to veto legislation for (say) the EPA