Richard Nixon Good or Bad President?

[TwelveAM]

While Nixon's move on China was probably one of the greatest victories for the US in the Cold War, his attempt to abuse the power put into his hand by the people was pretty dangerous. I'd rather see dictators ruling the rest of the world than having one in my own country. Plus China was already at odd with the Soviet Union and Nixon wasn't the author of the Chinese-Soviet split, it's just his luck.

[Freeloader]

Then there is Bangladesh. I don't have full details on the issue, but it is my understanding that Nixon & Kissinger remained firm backers of Yayha Khan while he set about killing 1-3 million people in Bangladesh. I am further led to believe that when India initially made moves to intervene the US moved naval units to the Indian ocean as a form of threat. The Indian response was delayed by some months. (if this is not correct please jump in somebody).

Chile is another in the 'minus' column. Nixon & Kissinger actively supported efforts to politicize the Chilean military by supporting generals who planned to kill the non-political head of the Army. They then supported a coup that

I had forgotten about Chile, but I am familiar with that issue. Bangladesh on the other hand, I do not know a great deal about. I need to look into that one more it sounds like if roughly a million people died due to actions/inactions on his behalf. I know most of the "big issues" regarding Nixon, but there was a lot going on in the world during his presidency, and it just seems to all come out in the negative column, which seems completely unfair and wrong I suppose.

[LetsTalk]

Has any body listened to his tapes?

Smart, successful in some ways, but not the best person, and not some one I would like to be my president.

[LetsTalk]

I also found the document in the link below about Kissinger Telephone Conversations interesting

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB263/index.htm

[Ryan Bailey]

Nixon will definitely go down as one of the Great Leaders of all times.

He's right up there with GW Bush in my humble estimation.

[Bigfella]

I can only talk for his diplomacy but for the plus side I would say Egypt's peace with Isreal, China's alliance against soviet imperialism, US disengagement in Vietnam (with what BF said),the rescue of the dollar as the world's currency..

Minus side: Bangladesh? (who supported Bangladeshi independence in 1971 bar Indira Ghandi for obvious strategic reasons?), Chile is what every other US president would have done and did during the cold war.

Oscar,

The issue wasn't supporting Bangladeshi independence, it was supporting a dictatorship busily killing a million of its own people. Had the generals in Karachi been prepared to accept a democracy where Eastern Pakistan had the biggest party then independence might not have been an issue. They chose dictatorship & mass murder. Eastern Pakistan chose independence.

My issue is that America chose to support that dictatorship while the mass murder continued & while millons fled to India. If Nixon did run interference for the Generals then his role in the mass murder becomes active.

As for Chile, the fact that other US Presidents might have done something something similar (probably a point open to discussion) hardly makes it right. Again, this wasn't just passively supporting a fait accompli, it was actively trying to remove a democratically elected government. This was as unforgivable when Nixon did it as when Eisenhower or Johnson did it. If we were talking about them I would cite the relevant examples.

[Bigfella]

I cannot respect the man for his abuses and his Godfather mentality towards the Presidency but the world owes him a load of thanks for helping to avert a nuclear war between the USSR and the PRC.

OOE,

For those of us who have forgotten the detail of this achievement (or never really knew - as I get older I can't always tell the difference) could you give us a summary of what happened.

[antimony]

Dark Strain

Alan Greenspan, in his memoirs, says that Nixon, alongwith Clinton, is one of the smartest Presidents he had worked with. He also says that while he got along with Clinton just fine, he was extremely wary of Nixon due to a dark strain that frequently surfaced. This is a heart and soul libertarian talking!!!

Oh, and Nixon also screwed up the lives of a few million Bangladeshis while he was trying to cozy up to Pakistan. That may not matter much to Americans, but it does matter to a Bengali like me.

[Officer of Engineers]

OOE,

For those of us who have forgotten the detail of this achievement (or never really knew - as I get older I can't always tell the difference) could you give us a summary of what happened.

During the Nixon-Brezhnev submit, Brezhnev asked point blank would the US support a Soviet nuclear strike to take out Lop Nor and therefore, destroy China's fledgeling nuclear arsenal and capability. Nixon said no and would view such a strike with grave consequences. I don't think he meant war but that Detente would be dead.

[Bigfella]

During the Nixon-Brezhnev submit, Brezhnev asked point blank would the US support a Soviet nuclear strike to take out Lop Nor and therefore, destroy China's fledgeling nuclear arsenal and capability. Nixon said no and would view such a strike with grave consequences. I don't think he meant war but that Detente would be dead.

Ta.:)

[Herodotus]

Nixon will definitely go down as one of the Great Leaders of all times.

He's right up there with GW Bush in my humble estimation.

And what do you base that on? Your gut, your political persuasion? Have you read books on Nixon, viewed historical rankings of presidents? Do you think his place in history is going to change much after 35 years of perspective? Only if future leaders are far worse then Nixon will he be viewed as one of the "Great Leaders", and if there are far worse leaders then Nixon one wonders how many will be left to write the history books.

[troung]

I cannot respect the man for his abuses and his Godfather mentality towards the Presidency but the world owes him a load of thanks for helping to avert a nuclear war between the USSR and the PRC.

Does it actually?

[GraniteForge]

Working with 5th grade students, the topic of Presidents has been a hot topic with the class due to the recent election of Barack Obama. They've learned about all the Revolutionary War era presidents (especially Adams, very underrated) as well as the next couple, and are closing in on the Civil War era.

In addition, a few random figures throughout time have received a lot of attention. One of which is Teddy, whom I champion as the greatest President ever (in my opinion) as well as Bush and clinton, being the two most recent.

But the last one is Richard Nixon. A couple students in the class argue "You know, he wasn't all that bad of a president, he did some good things" which is entirely correct. In fact, he did a lot of extremely positive things that would of held him in higher approval today than Reagan had it not been for Watergate imo. Watergate, as it was...was it even THAT bad? I was not alive back then, so perhaps I do not fully grasp the significance of the issue, or have missed something. I understand that Nixon oversaw a breakin and spying covert on the democrats. But was this actually worse than say, Andrew Jackson, a president whom people like, sending tens of thousands of Indians packing west to Oklahoma, many of which died on route? Or his massive slavery ring/pro slavery mindset? Really?

Either history has Nixon completely mislabeled and Watergate is blown way out of proportion, or I am missing something. Help me out here

The way in which Watergate is blown out of proportion is not in its importance to the nation, but, rather, that it is often discussed to the exclusion of other manifestations of Nixon's very real attempt to establish an "Imperial Presidency."

I don't think it was entirely Nixon's fault that he finally concluded that he was above the law. During his previous two terms as Vice President, he made a famous goodwill trip all over Latin America. The juntas and "strongmen" absolutely loved him; he was very right-wing, and talked tough. In adoration of his personally, and in an attempt to bind themselves more closely to the US, several of the countries he had visited issued stamps, and even coins, with his likeness.

For Nixon, this was heady stuff. In the US, in those days, only deceased Presidents were so honored, and only after great debate. Nixon saw this as a public recognition (albeit not an American public reaction) to the great personal dignitas and auctoritas (Roman concepts of Imperium that don't really translate well, but Nixon understood) that he believed he possessed.

I suspect that a survey of his speeches before and after this period would show the change in how he expressed his philosophy of governance, and the role of the President.

It was after his trip that he turned into what one friend of mine calls "Satan's Personal Representative to the US Government." Of course, it is always my duty to point out to my friend that this post is actually held by Henry Kissinger. :)

[Ryan Bailey]

Richard Nixon, A Great American President

And what do you base that on?

My personal opinion, based upon observations of Richard Nixon's decorum, dignity, respect, conduct, leadership style, patriotism and vision lead me to conclude that he, perhaps better than any other American Statesman of Our Generation, understood what was necessary to lead the west in strength toward a peaceful engagement with the East and Communism, away from foreign entanglementism, which was the Yankee Arrogance derived legacy he inherited, & perpetuate the blessings of the post-war era he helped to usher in under GEN Eisenhower.

Your gut,

And Roger.

your political persuasion?

And Roger.

Have you read books on Nixon,

And Roger.

viewed historical rankings of presidents?

And Roger.

Do you think his place in history is going to change much after 35 years of perspective?

And Roger.

Already the west understands his important legacy of strength and respect towards our adversaries. This would inspire the Reaganist "Trust but Verify" mentality in certain ways.

His willingness to execute the necessary aerial bombardments & naval obstacle arrays in SE Asia, led to a satisfactory change of mission and tactical withdrawal of Our Forces in the Indo-Chinese Peninseular Region, without sacrificing certain key terrains in the area. Whilst disagreeing on certain of his decisions, as I do with all men, I cannot imagine anyone who could have better governed under such difficult circumstances.

Be assured that we would certainly still be deployed in mass in SE Asia were it not for his wisdom, which was nothing short of Washingtonian.

Only if future leaders are far worse then Nixon will he be viewed as one of the "Great Leaders", and if there are far worse leaders then Nixon one wonders how many will be left to write the history books.

For the interested student I would recommend President Nixon's book 1999, which I found inspirational to the vision of peace in the post Cold War era. It, together with the works of Gavin, Schlafley, Buchanan & others helped inform my personal diplomatic goals and ideals just as I was coming into my own as a young intelligence professional.

Pres. Nixon was part and participle of the important conservative movement c. 1964-c.1988, along with such outstanding leaders as Goldwater, Reagan & Paul, which will be recorded as a spiritual awakening in Our Land. He was a self made man, unlike the man he lost to, under questionable circumstances, in November 1960.

In this way he symbolises for me the relief that his brand of GOP faithfulness provides from the unqualified elitism of Northeastern Liberalism which the Democrat Party inflicts on us still.

Pres. Nixon twice saved our country from the type of scandals which in this generation have been all too common from selfish politicians. His dignified actions in standing down when he stood to win both in a recount and an impeachment, are what represents the difference between a Statesman and a politician; Clinton and Gore, be so educated.

[Herodotus]

And what do you base that on?

My personal opinion, based upon observations of Richard Nixon's decorum, dignity, respect, conduct, leadership style, patriotism and vision lead me to conclude that he, perhaps better than any other American Statesman of Our Generation, understood what was necessary to lead the west in strength toward a peaceful engagement with the East and Communism, away from foreign entanglementism, which was the Yankee Arrogance derived legacy he inherited, & perpetuate the blessings of the post-war era he helped to usher in under GEN Eisenhower.

Your gut,

And Roger.

your political persuasion?

And Roger.

Have you read books on Nixon,

And Roger.

viewed historical rankings of presidents?

And Roger.

So basically you are a partisan whose judgment is clouded.

[

I]Do you think his place in history is going to change much after 35 years of perspective?[/I]

And Roger.

Already the west understands his important legacy of strength and respect towards our adversaries. This would inspire the Reaganist "Trust but Verify" mentality in certain ways.

There were a lot of differences between Reagan and Nixon though. Where Nixon held stark and cold realist beliefs, Reagan' foreign policy had as an underlying base a sunny optimism and idealism. Lest we forget Reagan was 100% opposed to the use of nuclear weapons and wanted them abolished from the world.

His willingness to execute the necessary aerial bombardments & naval obstacle arrays in SE Asia, led to a satisfactory change of mission and tactical withdrawal of Our Forces in the Indo-Chinese Peninseular Region, without sacrificing certain key terrains in the area. Whilst disagreeing on certain of his decisions, as I do with all men, I cannot imagine anyone who could have better governed under such difficult circumstances.

Still the war was lost as I recall.

Be assured that we would certainly still be deployed in mass in SE Asia were it not for his wisdom, which was nothing short of Washingtonian.

Your hyperbole aside I don't think that is an accurate statement at all. Once opinion shifted in the US I think any mass troop deployment would not be sustainable in SE Asia.

Only if future leaders are far worse then Nixon will he be viewed as one of the "Great Leaders", and if there are far worse leaders then Nixon one wonders how many will be left to write the history books.

For the interested student I would recommend President Nixon's book 1999, which I found inspirational to the vision of peace in the post Cold War era. It, together with the works of Gavin, Schlafley, Buchanan & others helped inform my personal diplomatic goals and ideals just as I was coming into my own as a young intelligence professional.

I'll read the book, but do you recommend anything by a non-partisan, preferably someone who didn't work for or fawn over Nixon?

Pres. Nixon was part and participle of the important conservative movement c. 1964-c.1988, along with such outstanding leaders as Goldwater, Reagan & Paul, which will be recorded as a spiritual awakening in Our Land. He was a self made man, unlike the man he lost to, under questionable circumstances, in November 1960.

He was also most responsible for the Southern Strategy, which has now left the Republicans a regional political party.

In this way he symbolises for me the relief that his brand of GOP faithfulness provides from the unqualified elitism of Northeastern Liberalism which the Democrat Party inflicts on us still.

Pres. Nixon twice saved our country from the type of scandals which in this generation have been all too common from selfish politicians. His dignified actions in standing down when he stood to win both in a recount and an impeachment, are what represents the difference between a Statesman and a politician; Clinton and Gore, be so educated.

Yes, because Nixon will always be remembered for saving the country from personal scandals. Your analysis isn't credible, and I don't think you are a serious poster on this forum. You are entitled to your opinions though, however wrong they may be. In the future though to spare myself the indignity of reading such tripe, I will refrain from responding to your comments.