Watergate: S & D

Sigh.

The Nixon-Kissinger historical record in Greece, Chile, Laos, Cyprus, the Ellsberg burglary -- not just their sneers and chuckles and terrible jokes, but the ease with which they separate motive from consequences as only sociopaths can -- amply proves that this person's acts were not "human failings."

and as I've said, all modern US presidents are evil, just as all Mafia dons are. There are degrees, of course.

I don't at all think Obama is at Nixon levels yet or has shown Nixonian intentions.

As discussed in our poll, those post-WWII presidents are a vile bunch.

Then I'll go back to the way I phrased it originally: "If you believe that, fine. I don't." I do realize I have a minority viewpoint here. But I also think it's a valid one. And I suspect I've listened to, read about, and thought about Nixon as much as you guys have.

(Another point on which we disagree; I don't think evil has gradiations.)

At least I have Neil Young on my side...

sure it has gradations, that's why I held my nose and voted for Bill Bradley over Gore in the 2000 primary.

Of course evil has gradations: that's why, as you pointed out, he could love his grandchildren and speak intelligently about Hegel.

I've been skimming the Crowley book, and while I can't find exactly what I'm looking for, it was likely a passage like this that prompted my comments upthread:

"Nixon relished the idea that Clinton might defer to him on international affairs and permit him greater latitude than either Regan or Bush had. Clinton might grant more weight to his opinions and advice and perhaps even act on them."

Now, you say she's a hack (simultaneously saying "as the Monica Crowley books showed"...)--I remember liking the first book, but maybe you're right, I don't know. But she's probably primarily guilty of being a mouthpiece for Nixon, in which case those the preceding quote would be reflective of how Nixon perceived Regan and Bush's treatment of him. My sense is that when they conferred with Nixon, it was more because he was a potential nuisance to be pacified, Johnson's thing about having someone inside the tent rather than out. I don't view carryover in appointments as especially significant; that's a standard Washington thing, where new administrations overlook everything except who can step in on day one and have some idea of what's supposed to be done.

Bill Bradley less evil than Al Gore? I don't know, they're both pretty scary guys...We disagree. There's evil, which is innate, and there's bad behaviour, bad decisions, momentary insanity, etc. That's the way I see it, anyway.

Omit "those," and "Reagan" for "Regan."

Actually, skip to the 8:10 mark here: Nixon/Hopkins ruminates on evil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx0t-pLLD2k

If I'm not mistaken, Morbius, you describe almost every post-war president as evil. If you believe that, fine. I don't. Sorry to be obvious (naive, I'm sure say, my Kay Corleone to your Michael), but to me evil is Hitler and Manson and the like.

while i'm sure most of us would rather attend a dinner party with nixon than manson, what exactly makes manson more evil? manson was a fringe cult leader and an obvious nutjob; nixon was given a position of incredible responsibility and power, and misused it horribly, resulting in the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of people.

I think the other point I'm making is something along the lines of the boy who cried wolf. When Morbius daily refers to virtually every president as evil, including the sitting one, his outrage over Nixon becomes harder to take seriously. It's a version of right-wing radio; the outrage machine loses credibility at a certain point of saturation.

it's pretty hard to argue against the idea that every post-war president has ordered acts that could be pretty unambiguously described as evil. i'm personally not that concerned whether or not any of them personally is 'evil' -- in fact, the post-war president i admire most as a president, LBJ, was arguably the worst human being among them. on the other hand, not holding leaders responsible for what they do, or making excuses for them because they seem like nice people, is a slippery slope.

the reason ppl argue against the 'imperial presidency' is precisely because everyone's 'human failings' are inflated by power. comparing the likes of taft, harding and coolidge to the post-war presidents is pretty instructive.

And people have made the same argument against Truman, George W. Bush, Johnson, etc. As I say, I think you can disagree on this point. To me, Hitler and Manson and evil in its truest form springs from hatred. When presidents initiate and/or okay some of the horrible things that have taken place under their watch, I don't see hatred as a motivating factor. To me, the Obama who's presiding over three wars right now is more or less the same Obama who was doing community organizing and raising his family anonymously 15 years ago; I don't believe you become evil when you step into the presidency. I think there's a myriad of factors that have been behind the wars of the past 50 years. Some, like oil and money and political power, are not very noble; sometimes, whether you agree or not, I think they're trying to do what they see as right from the vantage point of the presidency. I don't see hatred as one of those factors. And I realize that, if you're living in Vietnam or Iraq or wherever, and you've been on the receiving end of that myriad of factors, it's a moot point. I understand that.

Or if you've been infinitely detained &/or are being tortured daily by 'the free-est nation on earth'.

Trust me on this one point: I'm not arguing that Nixon wasn't evil because he was a nice person. Nice is the last thing I'd describe him as (notwithstanding that he did have a major sentimental streak in him).

hey it's just the system that's waterboarding me, one guy can't change it. xp

I don't believe you become evil when you step into the presidency.

No; under present conditions, you generally do when you set your sights on it.

ie "the Obama who's presiding over three wars right now is more or less the same Obama who was doing community organizing" -- no way to know.

but the stealth question of this thread is: Who's driving me to the Nixon Library?

damn, alf's bringin the ruckus itt

Boy, I'll tell you: I'd love to see some of the people on this board unleashed on the presidency. When you're convinced that your every pronouncement is the gospel truth, and you make incivility your life's work on a relatively small scale such as this--no, I'm not talking about everybody--well, I'd love to see that writ large. So when Morbius says I'm off to napalm the Bronx, that's a non sequitur; you aren't, because you can't. The question is, how would you behave as president? That's what none of us knows, and why I'm a little hesitant to start setting the bar on evil.

You HAVE to bomb people to be president. So, you know, if elected, I will not serve.

I believe my every pronouncement is the gospel truth FOR ME, WHEN I MAKE IT.

plus if anyone tried to implement truly leftist values as president, assassination would be efficiently arranged.

you guys can go on and on about how bad the soviet union was, but boy i'll tell you, i'd like to see some of you guys in stalin's place, what would YOU have done?

Don't forget Hitler; you need to get to work on an outrageous Hitler analogy pronto.

Hitler loved his dog.

Good enough. Hitler loved his dog, Obama loves his dog, gradiations of evil...it's all starting to come together for me.

btw, this:

Boy, I'll tell you: I'd love to see some of the people on this board unleashed on the presidency. When you're convinced that your every pronouncement is the gospel truth, and you make incivility your life's work on a relatively small scale such as this--no, I'm not talking about everybody--well, I'd love to see that writ large.

is precisely why people object to the inflated powers of the modern presidency. nixon minus those powers is just a jerk; nixon with those powers is a dangerous man. but that doesn't excuse nixon -- he set out to expand those powers once in office, after all.

That's fair. We're arguing in circles a bit here--as I've tried to make clear, I'm really and truly not trying to excuse Nixon. We just view what lay behind his actions differently. You guys see evil; I see lots of reasons, but evil's not one of them.

And just like I'd love to see what a few people here would be like as president, I'd equally love to see what Nixon would have been like on a message board like this. I imagine he would been something to behold.

Time to get back to Il Posto. I'll leave you with some he's-good-bad-but-he's-not-evil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOdP_VvPKHU

When you're convinced that your every pronouncement is the gospel truth, and you make incivility your life's work on a relatively small scale such as this--no, I'm not talking about everybody--well, I'd love to see that writ large

You have -- in the career of Richard Milhouse Nixon.

clemenza, we share a lot of musical tastes (and views on said tastes) but politically we never do. You belive in this Vital Center of Moderation that (a) has never worked, esp in the modern presidency, when it's the bullies and actors on both sides who've been most effective (b) has never really existed.

I mean, you've said many times you're an Obama apologist, and to an extent you're right: there's a lot to apologize for.

btw unnice people are often the most sentimental.

search: the Safeway in the complex, where I shopped the summer I lived in Foggy Bottom

destroy: the tapes

as I've tried to make clear, I'm really and truly not trying to excuse Nixon. We just view what lay behind his actions differently. You guys see evil; I see lots of reasons, but evil's not one of them.

that's fair. i think i'm basically just iffy on this idea of evil being something inherent in one's personality. the impression i get of hitler from albert speer's memoirs is that he was a sociopath, a jerk, and a bore -- but not the earthly incarnation of satan. to me, evil lies in what people do, not what they are.

nixon, like every other person, was infinitely complex. that's why, to a certain extent, i think it's ultimately futile to speculate about why he did what he did. there's no doubt at all in my mind that he thought he was doing the right thing -- but for me, that doesn't mitigate anything he did.

i do, btw, think it's still possible to be president and not be complicit in atrocious acts, though it'd admittedly require a statesman of lincoln's stature at this point.

That's cuz the US generally minded its own fucking business til the 1890s

I like the title of Tom Wicker's Nixon book: One of Us. That's how I view Nixon. Then again, Syberberg called his Hitler film [i]Our Hitler[i], so maybe there's a parallel there. It's very complex...but J.D. makes some good points in the previous post.

He IS a fascinating creature, particularly in his striving to be what he was not: classy and beloved. But wickedly fascinating.

i do, btw, think it's still possible to be president and not be complicit in atrocious acts

Things you believe in despite scientific evidence to the contrary.

The question is, how would you behave as president? That's what none of us knows, and why I'm a little hesitant to start setting the bar on evil.

End the fucking wars. Cut the defense budget. Give the working-class and middle-class a fucking break for once.

Also, take over Mars.

yep. and the problem isn't that there's no conceivable candidate who would do that -- there are plenty. it's that neither party would nominate (and support) someone who was seriously likely to do those things.

End the fucking wars. Cut the defense budget. Give the working-class and middle-class a fucking break for once.

Ideally, sure. But I'll be honest, Adam--take away the profanity, and to me that's one step away from Miss South Carolina wishing for world peace.

This'll be a waste of time, and will be answered by a one-sentence dismissal by somebody--and doesn't belong on a Watergate thread besides--but, as briefly as possible, here's why I think Obama doesn't end the wars. 40% of the country will be with Obama no matter what; 30-35% are going to attack him no matter what. That leaves everyone else, and I think you could probably start chopping them up into little groups too. Somewhere in there, I think there's 10-15% of the electorate who had an unspoken deal with Obama: we'll vote for you, but please don't do stuff that's going to remind us that you're black, and no sudden movements, please, because sudden movements will remind us that you're black. Yes, I know--post-racial world, Obama's just the president, not the black president, etc., etc. I don't believe that, and I doubt that Obama does either. On top of that, you can throw in the usual Democratic skittishness when it comes to appearing weak on foreign policy, something that's defined the party since Reagan.

So, I believe, he does the crassly political thing and keeps two wars going, and, tentatively, sort of half-starts a new one. He does this because he has it in his mind that everything will unravel if he doesn't--he'll lose that 10-15% who've been keeping his approval ratings somewhere close to 50%, and from there, no legislation and no re-election. That's not a defense of the wars, and maybe I'm completely wrong; I'm just trying to explain my interpretation of what's happening.

When it comes to the detention and surveillance stuff, that I don't understand. And it's been a major disappointment. I don't go on the political thread and talk about it, because a) there are lots of people who do that already, and b) since those people rarely, if ever, acknowledge anything good about Obama's performance in office, I play the same game and don't acknowledge the negative.

Colson is one of the most disgusting humans to ever walk the face of the earth imho

you guys can go on and on about how bad the soviet union was, but boy i'll tell you, i'd like to see some of you guys in stalin's place, what would YOU have done?

not a stupid question actually

anyway oughtn't you to "set the bar for evil" somewhere you actually occasionally cross, because otherwise it's pretty obvious you're cheating

that said nixon was some medieval shit

nobody left but liddy and dean

does Diane Sawyer count?

it was a guess really but it had a certain poetry so i went with it

alive!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Segretti

https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/roger-stone-richard-nixon-tattoo.jpg

Magruder testifies that money was given to Liddy in good faith to use as security at campaign rallies for Nixon surrogates and the RNC convention.

— Watergate Day Of - 1973 (@WatergateDayOf) January 23, 2020

embedded tweets are good again

(ps they were always good)

The crazy rat bastard finally popped his clogs

G. Gordon Liddy has died at 90. His bungling of Watergate break-in triggered a crisis that led to President Nixon's resignation. https://t.co/UM81k5hv5v

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) March 30, 2021

Somewhat fatalistically, I'm starting in on the Graff book.

HBO ‘Plumbers’ tv show; five episodes, starts March

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXTmH6C4LHY