Continuing with the apparently unavoidable theme of each post having nothing to do with the previous one, let us now discuss Richard Milhous Nixon.
I am not a fan of history learned by television. My cousin will bring up something about a president and I'll ask where he got that information and invariably he will reply, "Oh, I saw it on the History Channel." Now, don't get me wrong, I would much prefer that people take enough of an interest in history to at least watch it on television. But to my mind, there is no substitute for a good thick book on the subject. Serious history is far too shaded with subtlety and imbued with meaning to be told in 44 minutes with 16 set aside for Cialis ads.
So it may come as a surprise that last night I watched a portion of the History Channel's examination of the Nixon Presidency. They called it "Nixon: A Presidency Revealed" and then proceeded to "reveal" Watergate for two hours.
Now, I'm no fan of Richard Nixon. I wasn't even alive in 1960 and I have a Kennedy campaign poster from that year hanging from my office wall. But I am a fan of the idea that history shouldn't reduce important figures to one line epitaphs. For instance, the word "Iraq" will undoubtedly appear in George W. Bush's obituary someday. Which is fine, but hey, let's not forget about all the other things he's fucked up in the last six years!
You might think I'm making the same point as Nixon, but I'm not. What gets lost in the History Channelization of Richard Nixon is why he matters beyond Watergate, and the sum of that relevance is enormous. His story is told badly by contemporary historians, in a way that not only doesn't account for his accomplishments, it's also just bad storytelling. In his farewell speech, Nixon said, "Only when you have been in the deepest valley can you ever know how magnificent it is to be on the highest mountain." The problem is, the people who learn about Nixon from the History Channel only hear about his journey in the deep valley of Watergate. You never hear about Nixon on the highest mountain.
I'm not just talking about Nixon going to China, although that was a stunning diplomatic triumph. Nixon brilliantly played China and the Soviet Union off of each other to get a good arms treaty for the United States, paving the way for the end of the Cold War. Nixon was the one who carried out the desegregation policies that were largely theoretical before he became president. He planned an ambitious and surprisingly progressive domestic agenda that really would have been "compassionate conservatism." He contributed to the quality of American life in many relatively unnoticed ways - the creation of the Product Safety Commission comes to mind.
So, in the end, yes, Nixon was a bastard. He was intensely paranoid and maintained a fierce hatred for his enemies, both real and perceived. The excesses of his conduct and the abuse of his presidential power are documented fact. The Watergate scandal, for which he rightfully bears responsibility, produced a constitutional crisis in this country unrivaled since the Civil War. Perhaps most importantly, Watergate eroded the public's confidence in the presidency and government as a whole, and I'm not sure that trust has ever been fully regained. All of these things are true, and deserve to be the lead item and focus of any biography of Richard Nixon. But what makes Nixon a great story is that while he routinely ranks among the worst presidents, he could have been one of the very best if not for his flaws. Maybe they could mention that before they cut to the commercial break.
