I covered a lot of ground in my latest reading of David Greenberg's Nixon's Shadow: The History of an Image. I finished the chapter on the Washington Press Corps' image of Richard Nixon, the one about the image of Nixon that was held by Nixon loyalists, and the one on the image of Nixon promulgated in psycho-historical works.
I did find my latest reading to be
engrossing, and there were at least two reasons for that. First of all,
Greenberg is a compelling storyteller. In my latest reading, Greenberg
told the tale of journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, who
investigated the Watergate scandal when many within the upper-level
media were unwilling to do so. Greenberg talked about Rabbi Baruch
Korff, who had become a Nixon fan in 1972 due to Nixon's support for
Soviet Jews, and who achieved minor celebrity status by launching an
organization to defend President Nixon during the Watergate scandal.
Greenberg discussed the popularity and significance of works about
Nixon. Silent Coup's
controversial thesis about Watergate was rejected by a number of
observers, including certain historians, yet it was accepted by Nixon
apologists and was given some scholarly cover by Joan Hoff. Victor
Lasky's It Didn't Start with Watergate, which was about how
Nixon's misdeeds were no worse than those of previous Administrations,
sold many copies, even though even Lasky acknowledged that the reason
for its popularity was probably that it made Nixon supporters feel a
little better after Watergate. Woodward and Bernstein's The Final Days,
as well as David Frost's interviews of Nixon, made many Americans feel
sorry for the former President. And Greenberg goes into the
entertainment media's depiction of Nixon. Alex Keaton on the 1980's
sitcom Family Ties was an ardent Nixon supporter, yet Alex was a likeable character. (I appreciated this discussion because Family Ties was what got me interested in politics.) And the 1999 comedy Dick
not only depicted Nixon as a buffoon, but also Woodward and Bernstein.
In my mind, evaluating and discussing the significance of relevant
players and works is an element of good storytelling.
impression is that Greenberg strives to be fair to Nixon, as he accepts
and rejects the arguments of pro- and anti- Nixon people, as well as
acknowledges some legitimate point in the various images of Nixon,
without necessarily accepting those images completely. Greenberg
acknowledges that some of what the media accused Nixon of doing was
false, and he also says that the allegation that Nixon beat his wife
Pat lacks convincing evidence. Yet, Greenberg does not buy Nixon's
arguments in every case: Nixon often alleged that the Democrats had his
plane bugged in 1968, for example, but Greenberg does not believe that
there is evidence for that. In the chapter on the psycho-historical
depictions of Nixon, Greenberg essentially says that they may have a
point, but that they went too far at times: they could get overly
political, or they would try to find a deep sinister meaning in
insignificant things that Nixon did (such as mashing his mashed
potatoes). Greenberg makes an attempt to be fair and balanced, to both
Nixon and also those who have written about Nixon.
mean that I agreed with Greenberg on everything. For example, on page
213, Greenberg says regarding Frost's interviews of Nixon that "The
Watergate segments also provided the shows' most lasting moments,
including Nixon's rationalization, soon to enter Bartlett's, that 'When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.'" The movie Frost/Nixon depicts that statement as dramatic and as occurring within the context of Nixon's discussion of Watergate (see here). The thing is, Nixon was not talking about Watergate when he made that statement, but rather he was discussing the Huston plan
for gathering intelligence on domestic radicals. Nixon's point, as
Stephen Ambrose says, was that certain things that ordinarily would be
illegal, such as burglary, become legal when the President provides
cover for them. One can argue that what Nixon said was still bad, even
within that context, as David Frost does here,
or even that Nixon's statement was relevant to Watergate because it
provides us with insight into his view on Presidential power. But Nixon
was not explicitly talking about Watergate when he made that statement,
nor did he say it in a particularly dramatic fashion (see here).
Eros and The Christ, Fredrickson, David E.
2 hours ago