|
The evolution of Nixon the idea |
|
By The Hill Staff
|
|
Posted: 10/08/03 12:00 AM [ET] |
Almost 10 years after his death, Richard Nixon continues to intrigue and fascinate. Both his political legacy and ethical lapses provide fertile territory for animated discussion.
While another biography is not needed — he already is one of the most studied modern leaders — readers would benefit from a comprehensive look at how perceptions of the former president have changed during the past 50 years. Yale University historian David Greenberg provides such an examination and analysis in Nixon’s Shadow, subtitled The History of an Image.
Greenberg’s book, an expansion of his doctoral dissertation, looks at how different groups such as liberals, journalists, the foreign policy establishment and psychohistorians have looked at Nixon the man and Nixon the politician. Though the author’s politics are a bit left of center, as reflected in his regular historical essays for Slate magazine, the book is generally balanced.
Nixon’s Shadow traces the late president’s evolution from a Cold War anti-communist who railed against the expanding role of government, to a supporter of detente and of domestic policies often praised as more liberal than those of some Democratic presidents. Nixon’s ideological flexibility caused both liberals and conservatives to distrust him with equal fervor at different times.
“None of these groups invented its image of Nixon out of thin air. Each detected real qualities in the man: his populist rhetoric, his conspiratorial designs, his devotion to high-stakes diplomacy. And each filtered those qualities through its own traditions, ideologies and assumptions. … Nixon’s image was constantly changing, always contested,” Greenberg writes.
He argues that Nixon’s ability to manipulate his image early on paid numerous short- and long-term dividends.
“Nixon’s successful self-presentation launched his career and made him the leader of the Republican Party for 20 years,” Greenberg writes.
Furthermore, he credits Nixon with ushering in the era in which politics revolved around images to a greater extent than ever before.
That is a frequent critique made by liberals who are frustrated by Nixon’s successes.
While Nixon was a masterful manipulator, it is not at all clear that he was any more deceptive than Democrats like the Kennedys and Lyndon Johnson. Recent revelations in Robert Dallek’s biography of JFK about the extent to which he deceived people regarding the severity of his ailments shows that image manipulation is a bipartisan practice.
That flaw in his argument does not detract from the book’s overall effectiveness. Greenberg combines fine scholarship with elegant writing that will resonate with both scholars and interested political junkies.
He is especially helpful when summarizing and analyzing the vast scholarly and journalistic literature that has been produced about Nixon’s career. Whether it was a disparaging book by Nixon’s first opponent, Rep. Jerry Voorhis (D-Calif.), or an apologia by conservative journalist Victor Lasky, Greenberg covers the literary waterfront.
The author recognizes the importance of popular culture in shaping the political agenda and he discusses how Nixon is depicted in the opera “Nixon In China,” the novels of Thomas Pynchon and the television series “Family Ties.”
Though Nixon’s presidential and post-White House images are the most vivid in people’s minds, Greenberg is especially effective when he revisits Nixon’s earlier career.
By summarizing and analyzing seminal events such as the Alger Hiss case and the “Checkers speech,” the author helps us understand both how Nixon’s political persona evolved and how different sectors of the public came to form their impressions of Nixon.
Hiss, a State Department official whom Nixon accused of being a Communist, became a favorite cause among liberals. Subsequent evidence that Nixon was, in fact, correct never lessened the hatred of liberals for him. Nixon’s pathos-laden “Checkers speech,” in which he defended accepting a dog as a gift from a supporter, reinforced many people’s image of him as one who would do anything to further his career.
Conservatives at that time saw Nixon as one who stood up for their beliefs and was persecuted by the media and Democrats for challenging the prevailing liberal view of the world. Liberals, especially intellectual ones, saw him as a knee-jerk, reactionary anticommunist with middle-class values who lacked a sophisticated or enlightened outlook on life.
Many liberals, pleased by Nixon’s demise in the wake of Watergate, traced his flaws and moral weakness to his actions during the 1950s. Conservatives, who argued that he merely got caught doing things that all politicians routinely do, saw Watergate as further evidence that one of their own was a victim of a double standard.
No one is neutral about the late president and this guarantees intense and animated debates about him for many years to come. Due to its lively style and insightful analysis, Nixon’s Shadow should play an important role in framing the discussion and will provide people with the historical context to better understand the fascinatingly flawed former president.
Claude R. Marx is a journalist who has written extensively about American history and politics.
|
|
