I started Gary Allen's 1971 book, Richard Nixon: The Man Behind the Mask. Allen was a member of the right-wing John Birch Society, and he also wrote speeches for Governor George Wallace of Alabama.
Whereas the last book that I read, Jerry Voorhis' The Strange Case of Richard Milhous Nixon, was a critique of Nixon and Nixon's policies from the left, Allen attacks Nixon from the right.
Voorhis portrayed Nixon as someone who hampered the federal
government's attempts to ameliorate the country's problems, beefed up
spending on national defense, and assaulted Indochina with repeated
bombing. Allen, by contrast, depicts Nixon as a big-spender (on the
domestic side), as one whose Administration is inhabited by liberals,
and as one who shrinks the size of the U.S. military while refusing to
do what it takes to win the Vietnam War.
And yet, there are areas in which the left-wing Voorhis and the right-wing Allen overlap in their critiques. For one, both are critical of President Nixon's outreach to Communist China (or, for Allen, Nixon's desire to reach out to Communist China, since Allen's book came out in 1971). Allen is much more
critical, mind you, for Allen is probably against the U.S. reaching out
to Communists, period, whereas Voorhis speculates that it might have
been a good idea had the U.S. reached out to the Chinese Communists
early on (in the 1940's), and Voorhis also says that it would have been
appropriate had Nixon sought to normalize relations with Red China in a
low-key manner (rather than with the flash that accompanied the
normalization). And yet, Voorhis does not strike me as overly thrilled
that Nixon publicly and unexpectedly reached out to Red China, since it
is a dictatorship that frightens other countries (such as India).
Second,
both Voorhis and Allen essentially depict Nixon as ambitious----as one
who is looking out for himself and his own political advancement rather
than maintaining any commitment to a certain set of principles (left or
right). For Voorhis, this means that Nixon behaves
progressively at the right time to get votes, while ordinarily he
impounds government funds that are appropriated for domestic programs
and serves the interests of his rich buddies, who don't like taxes,
regulations, antitrust suits, protesters, their companies getting
nationalized in socialist countries, etc. For Allen, this means that
Nixon talks like a conservative to get votes (since Allen argues that a
significant number of American voters, including union people who have
entered the suburban middle-class, lean to the right), yet governs like a
liberal. Allen also believes that Nixon serves the interests of the
rich and the elites, but Allen understands the rich and the elites in
this case----not to be right-wing----but rather to be international
bankers and members of the Council of Foreign Relations, who (according
to Allen) desire a world collectivist government that they can exploit
for their own power and wealth.
Both Voorhis and Allen present
Nixon as rather duplicitous, as one who tells people one thing and does
another. Voorhis says that Nixon does this with our foreign friends.
And Allen tells a story about how Nixon in 1962 told conservative
Republican Joe Shell that he (Nixon) did not intend to pursue the
California Governorship, freeing Shell to seek the Republican
nomination. Nixon then turned right around and entered the race, after
Shell informed liberal Republican Nelson Rockefeller that he (Shell) was
not in Rockefeller's corner! (Allen seems to be arguing that Nixon was
serving Rockefeller's interests in this case. For Allen, Nixon and
Rockefeller may or may not like each other, but Nixon realizes that he
needs Rockefeller because the Eastern Establishment's support is
necessary for his own political advancement.)
Third, Voorhis and
Allen argue that Nixon distorts statistics for his own ends. Voorhis
contends that Nixon does this in seeking to argue that crime is slowing
down, that farmers are doing well, and that the U.S. under his
Administration is spending more on domestic concerns than on the
military. Allen, however, says that Nixon spreads foreign and domestic
aid around in his Administration such that he's spending more on these
things that he's letting on.
What's interesting is that the right-wing Allen actually speaks highly of the left-wing Voorhis in this book.
You may recall that Nixon in 1946 defeated and unseated Voorhis in his
race for U.S. Congress, thereby launching Nixon's political career. Allen
portrays Voorhis as an anti-Communist and as an opponent of deficit
spending, the Federal Reserve, and the international bankers.
Meanwhile, Allen accepts the popular leftist claim that New York banking
interests were financially helping out Nixon's campaign, probably
because this fits into Allen's narrative of Nixon being a tool of the
international banking conspirators. Allen refers to Voorhis'
story that someone from a New York financial institution visited
California to encourage influential people there to support Nixon,
describing Voorhis as "one of the most dangerous men in Washington"
(page 131).
Allen also is not overly critical of Nixon's opponent
for the U.S. Senate, liberal Democrat Helen Gahagan Douglas. According
to Allen, Douglas and her husband were both members of Communist fronts,
yet Allen says that "Although Mrs. Douglas was blind in many ways about
Communism (as she remains today) and was used by the Communists, she
was not consciously pro-Communist", for she was a strong opponent of
Henry Wallace's Progressive Party (page 147).
Allen's assessment of Douglas intrigued me, for at least two reasons. First,
Allen acknowledges that Douglas was not pro-Communist, even though she
was in Communist fronts. Throughout his book, Allen resorts to the sort
of argumentation that presents people as part of a conspiracy on
account of the groups that they are in, or the people with whom they are
close: if you or your family are or once were in the Communist Party,
or the Council on Foreign Relations, or in an international banking firm
(in a high-ranking role), or on friendly terms with Nelson Rockefeller
(i.e., being his lawyer), as Allen argues is the case with high-ranking
people who have helped out or served Dwight Eisenhower and Richard
Nixon, then you very well might be part of the globalist conspiracy,
with the goal of promoting domestic (and ultimately worldwide)
collectivism! When it comes to Douglas, however, Allen doesn't think
it's that simple! Even if Douglas had loose (perhaps unknowing) affiliations with Communists, Allen argues, she also had anti-Communist views.
Second,
although Allen presents Nixon's aggressive, red-baiting campaign
strategies against Voorhis and Douglas as rather misleading and unfair,
Allen appears to think that Nixon would have done well to have used that
kind of strategy when he ran against John F. Kennedy in 1960, and
against Pat Brown in 1962. On page 212, Allen laments that Nixon did
not attack Kennedy for seeking to repeal a loyalty oath provision, for
supporting "Communist revolutionaries in Algeria", and for wanting to
repeal the Battle Act provision prohibiting "the sending of strategic
materials to Iron Curtain countries", or Lyndon Johnson (Kennedy's
running-mate) for killing a bill allowing states to "punish
subversion." On pages 219-220, Allen wonders why Nixon did not attack
Pat Brown for being President of the Northern California chapter of the
National Lawyers Guild, which the House Committee on Un-American
Activities called "the foremost legal bulwark of the Communist Party"
(HUAC's words); for his close association with the California Democratic
Council, which an FBI undercover agent said was formed with Communist
Party assistance; and for opposing Proposition 24, which would ban the
Communist Party in California. Allen thinks that Nixon could have won
with this strategy. Had Nixon run as a right-winger in 1960, Allen
argues, he could have gotten more of the South, which would have made a
difference in that close election. And, on the basis of polls, Brown's
poor record, and a certain conservative who did win in California in
1962, Allen believes that Nixon could have defeated Pat Brown for the
Governorship of California. Why didn't Nixon go for the jugular,
according to Allen? My impression is that Allen thinks that Nixon was
serving the Establishment, which had a strategy: there would be an
overtly liberal Presidency during the 1960's, then a covertly liberal
Presidency after that. (Allen acknowledges some nuance to this, for he
argues that Lyndon Johnson ran as somewhat of a conservative against
Barry Goldwater in 1964.)
That brings me to Alger Hiss, the
alleged Communist spy whom Nixon took down when Nixon was in Congress.
For Allen, the Alger Hiss case has enabled Nixon to pursue liberal
policies without a whole lot of scrutiny from conservatives. After all,
how could Nixon be soft on Communism, when he was the one who brought
down Alger Hiss? (Allen acknowledges some nuance to this, for
throughout his book he quotes a number of conservative critics of Nixon
or Nixon's policies, such as William F. Buckley, James Kilpatrick, and Human Events magazine.)
What
does Allen have to say about the Alger Hiss case? Allen does not buy
Nixon's narrative that he (Nixon) courageously stepped forward to take
on Alger Hiss because he smelled a rat during Hiss' testimony, when so
many others were believing Hiss. Allen says that Karl Mundt of
HUAC in a 1962 interview related that President Truman's Assistant
Secretary of State secretly showed him (Mundt) State Department
information indicating Hiss' guilt, and that this was before Nixon even
heard Hiss' testimony. Allen also says that "a group of ex-Communists
and former FBI agents" was pressuring Nixon to go after Hiss, but Nixon
was very reluctant to do so. Allen bases this on what an anonymous
person from that group told him (meaning Allen). And Allen quotes Martin Dies, who had been chairman of HUAC. (The source is a May 1964 article that Dies wrote for American Opinion, a Bircher publication.)
Dies said that HUAC knew about Hiss for a while, even before Chambers
and Hiss testified, and that Dies had interacted with Chambers on
numerous occasions. After Dies left Congress, Dies' Chief
Investigator and Secretary, Robert Stripling, heard from Chambers, and
Stripling passed on the facts that he (Stripling) learned to Congressman
Richard Nixon. Nixon decided to take up the Hiss case and thereby
advanced his own career (which was why Allen says that Nixon overcame
his timidity and took it up!). But Dies narrates that Nixon later chose
not to reward Stripling by giving Stripling a post in the Eisenhower
Administration, as that would alienate the liberals whom the Eisenhower
Administration was trying to appease. Later in the book, Allen finds it odd that Nixon as President has been served by friends or supporters of Alger Hiss.
Allen's
discussion of the Hiss case fascinated me. I've read speculation that
Nixon already knew about Hiss' guilt before Hiss' testimony, but, in
books about Nixon that I have read thus far, the argument about that has
hinged on the account of Father Cronin of the FBI, who said this was
the case, only later to retract that claim. Allen refers to
sources that indicate that Nixon knew about Hiss' guilt before Hiss
testified, and also that Nixon was not the only one who believed that
Hiss was guilty. Whether or not I like or accept Allen's Bircher spiel
about a globalist conspiracy, Allen's discussion of the Hiss case
definitely makes his book worth reading.
Allen also makes
some points about the events leading up to Nixon's Checkers Speech, in
which Nixon said that a fund that he had from donations was for
political purposes, not for his own personal enrichment. Allen says
that most politicians had this sort of fund. But Allen refers to
additional two considerations. First, Allen seems to imply that Nixon
may have been using his political influence to help some of the
contributors. Allen mentions an article in the Washington Star saying
that "Nixon's office had interceded on behalf of [Dana] Smith [who put
together the fund] in a Justice Department case in which a company owned
by Smith's family was seeking a tax rebate of more than half a million
dollars" (Allen on page 157). Allen also says that the firm that the
National Republican Committee hired to look into the fund found that a
few contributors "had contacted Nixon to request his assistance in
connection with matter pending before a department or agency of the
government" (Allen's quote of the September 24, 1952 Washington Star). Second,
while Allen acknowledges that much of the fund was for political
purposes, Allen says that Nixon "had earlier admitted to columnist Peter
Edson that had it not been for the fund, he could not have made the
down payment on his house in Washington" (Allen refers to the Lost
Angeles Daily News, September 17, 1952).
This is
the first thing I have read that criticizes Nixon on the fund issue,
for other books I have read have tended to defend Nixon. I wonder,
though, if what Allen presents on the fund actually shows that Nixon
used any of it for personal purposes. Dana Smith may have organized the
fund, but was he a contributor? Contributors may have asked Nixon for
help, but did Nixon say yes? And did Nixon use part of the fund for his
house, or was Nixon merely saying that, because the fund covered
political activity, Nixon didn't have to use his own money for that, and
so the fund enabled Nixon to use his own money to make a down-payment
on his house?