I just started reading Rick Perlstein's "Nixonland." He ends the second chapter by stating that Nixon has shaped almost everything about the politics of the past 50 years. Perlstein argues we all live in Nixonland and to understand our current politics we must:
(s)tudy well the man at Nixonland's center, the man from Yorba Linda. Study well those he opposed. The history that follows is their political war.
I agree with this reading of U.S. political history. In fact, my wife jokingly says that I believe that the answer to any current problem in the U.S. (and sometimes global problems) is: It is all Nixon's fault.
At least at the level of presidential politics, I do think what happened during Nixon's administration has determined who we have elected. Everything from voting blocs to hot button issues changed due to Richard Nixon.
My shorthand way to make this point is this:
Without Nixon and his resignation, Gerald Ford never gets anywhere near the presidency. And without the shadow of Watergate, Jimmy Carter is too much of an outsider to become president. Ronald Reagan becomes president due to the combination of Carter's nuanced view of problems and the southern strategy (in my opinion Reagan's appeal was his unique ability to be both superficially optimistic and subtly bigoted.) The first George Bush doesn't fit the pattern as he definitely is an establishment candidate. But both his candidacy and governing style are influenced by post-Nixon cynicism as well as the so-called Reagan revolution.
Bill Clinton is a relative unknown who succeeds by being the first Democrat who can combine the policy position of formerly moderate Republicans with some appeal in the South--a combination necessary in Nixonland. Finally, George W. Bush is in many ways the culmination of the Nixon changes. He is both "misunderestimated" and surrounded by cynical politicos--a 21st century reincarnation of Nixon and his White House staff.
No doubt, this is an oversimplification of the past 50 years of presidential elections. However, it is obvious that the politics that Nixon epitomized--an us-against-them view of middle America--has been the dominant narrative since his election in 1968.
As the title to this post suggests, I think Barack Obama's election and re-election have ended Nixonland. The combination of demographics, the disastrous impact of George W Bush's policies, and Obama's political talents have created a new dominant narrative. This narrative is inclusive where Nixonland was divisive. It may not be as long-lasting as the New Deal consensus or Nixonland, but the landscape of presidential politics has changed.
My feelings about Nixon are that before Watergate, the American people generally believed that the US government was good and had the American people first on the agenda. It was Watergate that "allowed" the true believers to see that our system was being run by a power and money hungry psychotic or semi- psychotic gang that would do anything to get their way. Unfortunately, the American people are generally fair minded and naïvely expect others to be so too. We believe the actor-candidate in a plaid shirt standing by a red pick-up and think he is one of us; never mind that limo behind the camera. As a people, I do agree that the Obama era has ushered in a better understanding by the people that there are the 1% that run everything, and will take anything they can get, no matter the cost to others. This and the current backward thinking members of Congress (mostly the Tea Party) finally woke up the sleeping giant of the 99%.
ReplyDeleteKcg-There are still a lot of limos behind the cameras. In the third chapter, which I read after this post, Perlstein writes about how the 1960 presidential election was replete with dirty money and dirtier tricks--mostly on the Kennedy side. The 99% need to not only be awake but be active. And that means running for office. Because as long as the rich and their sycophants are all the players in the political system nothing much will change.
DeleteIf one ignores Vietnam & Watergate (which would take a lobotomy), Nixon was a fairly liberal President. Today, the GOP would consider him a Communist (and Reagan a Socialist.) Among his achievements are: Title IX, the EPA, and improved Civil Rights Commission, the OPM, and the Office of Energy Policy to help reduce our gluttony for oil. Imagine his running in last year's GOP primaries with that record. Here is a good review of his domestic efforts.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/06/13/did-any-good-come-of-watergate/nixon-had-some-successes-before-his-disgrace
Marty. Obviously I am still at the beginning of the book, but my guess is that Perlstein comes to the conclusion that it was not the policies of Nixon that matter as much as style of campaigning and governing. Perlstein does say in the opening chapters that Nixon was extremely "flexible" as far as policies he supported. So I would think that he would pretty much mirror Romney, but would not make any "47%" blunders. Nixon would be a Tea Party darling.
Delete