The Final Days 4

In this post, I'll share a couple of passages from The Final Days, by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, as well as a passage in Richard Reeves' President Nixon: Alone in the White House.  The topic is Richard Nixon's introversion and how he preferred not to deal with people.

On page 31 of The Final Days, we read: "Haldeman was so concerned about this predilection of Nixon's to retreat into himself that he spent the days immediately before and after his resignation as chief of staff trying to find his own successor.  The new White House chief of staff had to be someone who would oppose Nixon's preference for dealing with paper rather than people.  He had to be capable of presenting to the President a full range of options for each decision, of knowing how and when to ignore Nixon's intemperate orders."

On page 37, we read: "The President would not deal directly with people or events.  He preferred papers: memos didn't talk back, didn't push him."

And on page 12 of President Nixon: Alone in the White House, Richard Reeves states:

"He had learned how to act.  Nixon had memorized his lines, as he had memorized hundreds of pieces of music in order to play the piano----all of them in the key of G.  He was not a natural; it was all hard, lonely work.  He also memorized entire speeches, working alone from notes, then throwing away the paper.  He did the same thing with conversations, working from little scripts he committed to memory.  He once said of himself: 'I've found a way to do it.  I'm a reader, not a buller.  Most of the boys at the law school had long bull sessions about cases.  I studied my cases alone.'"

So end the readings!

I'd now like to comment about where I identify with these portrayals of Nixon, and where I differ.

1.  I prefer to communicate via e-mail rather than person-to-person.

2.  At the same time, I find that I learn things better by listening to people speak rather than through reading books.  Because of my social struggles, I tend to lean more heavily on reading books.  But I find that I learn things that change my outlook, and that I remember things a lot longer, when I hear them spoken by another human being.  This is true in terms of attending classes, and also having conversations with colleagues.

3.  At the same time, classes and conversations only skim the surface of any given topic, and that's why it's important for me to learn by reading----since there is a lot more information out there in books and articles.

4.  I find that person-to-person interaction with colleagues makes me more familiar with resources that are out there, whereas I probably would not be as familiar with these resources all on my own.  Is this because, on my own, I'm not sure what exactly I should be looking for----I don't know what to google to access what may help me?  That's probably part of it.

5.  There are times when I prefer to learn by snuggling up with a book.  But there are other times when I would prefer for people to summarize something for me, so that I don't have to plow through a document and do heavy-duty analysis.  On some level, I can identify with different Presidents' modes of operation (as I understand them, based on what I have heard or read): Richard Nixon preferring to read, Ronald Reagan wanting briefer documents or movies that conveyed information, Bill Clinton digesting policy books and picking the brains of intellectuals, and George W. Bush preferring to be briefed.

6.  One reason that I like to read is that the book or article does not answer me back.  I have problems with being challenged in person-to-person interaction because I am not quick enough on my feet to respond to what people say to me.  Of course, one can be challenged online, as well, in online discussions.  I don't particularly care for that, either, even though I have to admit that I have learned from such discussions, and have modified my views in response to some of them (while my views have hardened in reaction to others of them).  I'm all for learning, but not so much within a context in which I can take things personally: when I can lose face, or be considered stupid or inferior.  Consequently, I'm all for reading and hearing different perspectives----by reading books, or listening to radio programs, or watching YouTube videos----in a manner that does not involve my interaction with a human being who can talk (or write) back, when I can simply read, and make my own evaluation of what I just read.

7.  Some may criticize my post here, saying that I should adapt to the world, rather than expecting it to adapt to me.  I'm all for that, on some level, but I think that it's all right for me to take a look at my strengths and my weaknesses, so that I can use the former, while compensating for the latter.  Moreover, over the years, I've heard so many students bellyaching about their learning styles in classes, so I don't feel guilty talking about my own learning styles.  If others can do that, why can't I?

The Final Days 1

I started The Final Days, by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.  I figured that this was an appropriate book to read soon after finishing Richard Reeves' President Nixon: Alone in the White House.  I had expected for Reeves' book to go from the first day of Richard Nixon's Presidency up to the very last day, and, while it technically did that, it cramped the events after the resignations of Haldeman and Ehrlichman into a short epilogue.  Well, The Final Days primarily focuses on the Nixon White House after the resignations of Haldeman and Ehrlichman, so it's a good book to read soon after finishing Reeves' book!

On page 31, we read that "when Haldeman resigned, he had warned Haig about Nixon's tendency to isolate himself, to refuse to see advisers with bad news or unpalatable recommendations."

How am I on this?  Well, there are things that I just don't want to hear!  Recently, I've been saying to myself a lot, "Don't ask questions that you don't want to hear the answer to."  I don't want to hear what people are saying about me, or what they really think about me.  Even if I suspect that I have a hunch what they are thinking about me, I don't want to hear it!  I have enough problems struggling with grudges and a depressing recognition of my own limitations, without having to be saddled with additional burdens, as people judgmentally deconstruct me and attribute to me flaws, both real and imagined.  Maybe that sort of attitude means I'm not strong enough.  Oh well.

As I've said before on this blog, however, I respond well to certain types of constructive criticism.  When it's mocking and belittling, I don't respond well to it.  When it's matter-of-fact and mentions things I can do, I'm more open to it.  Of course, there are many people in the world who have bosses who delight in the former sort of criticism.  Many of them learn to cope with it and not to let it bother them the rest of the day.  Some are more successful at this than others are.

President Nixon: Alone in the White House 20

I finished Richard Reeves' President Nixon: Alone in the White House.  The book has an excellent bibliographic essay at the end, written by Jonathan Cassidy, who assisted Reeves in his research.  Although there are a variety of gems in that essay, I would like to highlight something that Cassidy says on page 669, as Cassidy comments on a book about President Richard Nixon's drug policy:

"Michael Massing's The Fix (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998) is an interesting look at American drug policy under Nixon.  On drugs, Nixon wasn't easy to stereotype.  Though he raged about government officials who were publicly soft on drugs, he drew fine distinctions that were lost on contemporary demagogues.  For example, in one memo he worried that a tough new law on pushers would be unfairly harsh to those who sold just to support their habit.  Massing's book shows that current policy makers could learn a lot from Nixon's realpolitik."

I don't know much about President Nixon's drug policy, but I think that any drug policy should be compassionate, yet tough.  Insofar as Nixon pursued that approach, I applaud him.

Many people whom I respect argue that the government should not have a drug policy, and that drugs should be legalized.  I'm hesitant to go that far, for I have problems envisioning marijuana and cocaine being sold at the local supermarket!  But I do recognize that there have been problems with the war on drugs: it has cost a lot, plus it has arguably been unfair, in that African-American drug abuse has been punished more harshly than white drug abuse.  Moreover, there are people who have been stiffly punished for taking a puff of marijuana, and I have heard and read that this punishment can have long-standing effects.

I could say that drug policy should focus on treatment and rehabilitation more than punishment, but that's easier said than done.  The thing is, people have to want to recover before they recover.  I have heard in recovery groups that you can't make people recover.  But maybe it wouldn't do addicts harm at least to be exposed to a recovery program: to hear the view that recovery is positive, to be given a chance to share their problems with someone who is understanding, to listen to the stories of people who are trying to recover.  Hopefully, something positive would sink in.

Plus, do we want to take punishment off of the table?  I am reluctant to propose this, since drug policy may need a carrot and a stick.  I wonder, however, how strict a drug policy should be, and I question the value of mandatory minimums.

President Nixon: Alone in the White House 19

On pages 600-601 of President Nixon: Alone in the White House, Richard Reeves talks about the time that President Richard Nixon was about to ask his close aides, H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, to resign.  Nixon did not like unpleasant interactions, so this was especially hard for him.  White House Press Secretary Ron Ziegler told Haldeman before Haldeman met with Nixon that Nixon himself had decided to resign.  But Haldeman did not believe that.  Haldeman said: "He's just steeling himself to meet with us.  He's creating a big crisis he can't meet, so that he can meet the lesser crisis of dealing with us."

That's actually an interesting way of coping: to create a big crisis (even if it's in one's mind), to cope with a smaller crisis.  Indeed, big crises can put small crises into perspective.  Whenever I have had a crisis that was big (for me, that is), that has tended to alleviate my petty resentments and bitterness.  Of course, those things return once the crisis is gone!  I wouldn't create a big crisis to deal with a smaller crisis, but I would remind myself that, however hard life may be now, it could be worse.

President Nixon: Alone in the White House 18

On page 572 of President Nixon: Alone in the White House, Richard Reeves says the following:

"What America did not seem to want was the aid Nixon had pledged to Vietnam, both South and North, in the peace agreement...[E]ven J. William Fulbright said aid should not be considered until after impounded domestic funding was released by the President...[Newsweek] quoted a Republican leader in the Senate as saying privately: 'It won't wash.  How can a senator support cuts in hospital, flood and education spending at home and then vote money for the same thing in Hanoi?'"

The conflict between domestic and foreign policy has perplexed more than one Administration.  That Republican Senator wondered how a Senator could support cuts in government spending for hospital, flood, and education, while voting to increase spending on those very same things in Vietnam.  Well, more than one person asked during Hurricane Katrina how our government could get supplies so quickly and efficiently to Afghanistan, but not to people suffering from the effects of Katrina.  More than one person has asked how the U.S. Government under President George W. Bush could spend money on universal health care in Iraq (see here), while opposing the notion that health care is a right here in the U.S.  And Richard Nixon, in No More Vietnams, argues that President Lyndon Johnson held back from waging the Vietnam War aggressively because he was trying to safeguard his Great Society legacy.

Those who support spending money on programs abroad, while not supporting the spending of more money on similar programs at home, could perhaps argue that they're not supporting foreign aid programs just because they are nice people.  Rather, they're doing so because those other countries that they want to support have a strategic importance.  I'm not certain that they argue this, but I can imagine it.  Perhaps they would have a point about those countries' strategic or geopolitical significance, and yet I still can't help but ask: Why are certain programs acceptable for people in foreign countries, but not for people in the United States?

The thing is, do we have to choose between foreign aid and domestic programs?  There are times when we do feel that we have to choose.  I remember watching the West Wing, and President Jed Bartlet told Zoey's French boyfriend that the reason the U.S. does not spend as much money as France on domestic programs is because the U.S. is spending money protecting Europe!  Do we have to choose?  Well, if universal health care actually saves money, as some progressives like to argue, maybe we can have our cake and eat it, too.  I don't know.

President Nixon: Alone in the White House 17

On page 519 of President Nixon: Alone in the White House, Richard Reeves quotes a diary entry in which Richard Nixon said the following:

"The American leader class has really had it in terms of their ability to lead.  It's really sickening to have to receive them at the White House as I often do and to hear them whine and whimper and that's one of the reasons why I enjoy very much more receiving labor leaders and people from middle America who still have character and guts and a bit of patriotism....Frankly, I have more in common with them from a personal standpoint than does McGovern or the intellectuals generally.  They like labor as a mass.  I like them individually...."

This makes me think about those with whom I connect, and those with whom I don't.  I'd say that I have a hard time connecting with both your average working-Joe, and also with many of the intellectual types.  But I do respect both----and not just because I as a Christian am obligated to respect all human beings, but also because both work hard and try to cope with the world, with all of their vulnerabilities.

President Nixon: Alone in the White House 15

On  page 301 of President Nixon: Alone in the White House, Richard Reeves tells the following story:

"On February 3, Nixon canceled an NSC meeting and called in Kissinger, Haldeman, Mitchell, and Connally.  After more than an hour, the President went into the small study off the Oval Office and stripped to his underwear, listening to the others as his chiropractor, Dr. Kenneth Riland, manipulated and massaged his back.  Then he came back into the discussion wearing only underpants and sat down, telling Kissinger and Haldeman to issue the order: phase two, the ARVN invasion, was 'Go.'"

Awkward!

President Nixon: Alone in the White House 14

On page 456 of President Nixon: Alone in the White House, Richard Reeves talks about a night during President Richard Nixon's trip to China when Nixon "could not get to sleep, he was too keyed up."

I've had that sort of experience in the past.  No, I never opened up relations with Red China, but there have been times when my mind was rushing at night in a sort of inertia, and thus I had problems getting to sleep.
 
On nights when I have given a speech that was well-received, or have challenged a speaker with my questions, my mind continues to rush with me thinking about what else I could have said.  It's like me being enamored with the sound of my own voice, only it's in my head.
It doesn't take me long to come back down to earth, though.

President Nixon: Alone in the White House 13

On page 422 of President Nixon: Alone in the White House, Richard Reeves comments on Richard Nixon's approach to criticism:

"The President's defensiveness was a personal thing, a measure of his extraordinary introversion.  In fact, Richard Nixon was a man closed to critics but open to criticism----as long as it was private and only on paper."

I can somewhat identify with this.  I'd definitely prefer to be criticized in private rather than in front of people.  On whether I prefer to be criticized on paper or in person, it depends on the criticism, I suppose.  I admit that I am sensitive to criticism, but there are some forms of criticism that are less painful to me than others.  I realize, after all, that I am not perfect, and that there are many things that I can do better.  Constructive, informed criticism that is not mocking of me or extremely insulting is what I prefer when it comes to criticism.

President Nixon: Alone in the White House 12

On pages 378-379 of President Nixon: Alone in the White House, Richard Reeves talks about the issue of I.Q.  Reeves quotes a memo to President Richard Nixon by Pat Buchanan, which was attached to an article by Richard Herrnstein in the Atlantic Monthly.  Herrnstein's article argued that heredity, not environment, determined a person's intelligence.  Buchanan sought to apply this idea to debates regarding racial integration:

"Every study we have shows blacks 15 I.Q. point below whites on average....If there is no refutation, then it seems to me that a lot of what we are doing in terms of integration of blacks and whites----but even more so, poor and well-to-do----is likely to result in accommodation than it is in perpetual friction----as the incapable are placed consciously by government side-by-side with the capable."

Pat Moynihan, who advised President Nixon on matters of domestic policy, had different advice.  Moynihan stated:

"It seems to me essential for you to proceed on the assumption that the scientists have not proved their case....Herrnstein is probably right that the world's work is done by persons of talent, but the world is kept together by the decency of quite ordinary people...."

Nixon denied the existence of inherent equality.  Actually, Reeves states that Nixon told him in a 1982 two-hour conversation that he (Nixon) believed that Asians were intellectually superior to Caucasians, and Caucasians were intellectually superior to blacks.  But Nixon ended up agreeing with Moynihan on how to respond to the Herrnstein article.  Nixon said: "It's clear that everybody is not equal, but we must ensure that anybody might go to the top."

Here are some thoughts:

1.  On the issue of I.Q. and race, I linked in my post here to a column by African-American conservative Thomas Sowell arguing that I.Q. is not based on race.  Sowell cites examples of African-Americans doing better on I.Q. tests than whites.  Moreover, others have argued that I.Q. tests are culturally biased.

2.  I disagree with the notion that one racial group is superior to another racial group, but I still appreciate a point that Moynihan made: that even people with average I.Q.s can contribute to society.  It wouldn't be that good of a society if only those with high I.Q.s could make contributions, while everyone else was deprived of opportunity.  It's a better society if everyone is involved and makes a contribution.

3.  I think that Buchanan's comment is sad.  Buchanan is a mix, in my opinion.  On the one hand, you find tragic comments like the one in that memo.  On the other hand, I read him in another memo encouraging Nixon in 1968 to reach out to African-Americans.  Buchanan has also expressed admiration for African-Americans' religiosity, and he has argued that free trade is bad because it takes away jobs from African-Americans.

4.  Overall, at least in my reading thus far, Reeves' portrayal of President Nixon's record on civil rights is not particularly glowing.  Reeves quotes racist things that Nixon allegedly said.  He cites a memo in which Nixon shamelessly advocated criticizing judicial activism with a wink-wink to the South.  He talks about segregationists whom Nixon wanted to appoint to the U.S. Supreme Court, including the attorney who "represented Little Rock in its 1957 efforts to maintain segregated schools" (page 382).  Reeves treats Nixon's Philadelphia Plan to increase African-American employment in construction as an attempt by Nixon to "deflect criticism on racial matters" (page 376).  And yet, there are times when President Nixon listens to progressive advice.  On one occasion, Nixon listened to Vice-President Spiro Agnew on the issue of housing.  (UPDATE: In Nixonland, however, Rick Perlstein says that Agnew argued that the cuts Nixon was thinking about would hurt white suburbanites.) And Nixon agreed with Moynihan's advice to ignore the Herrnstein article.

President Nixon: Alone in the White House 11

On page 321 of President Nixon: Alone in the White House, Richard Reeves quotes President Richard Nixon's negative reaction to a White House Correspondents Association dinner:

"Every one of the recipients was receiving an award for a vicious attack on the Administration----Carswell, wiretapping, Army surveillance, etc.  I had to sit there for 20 minutes while the drunken audience laughed in derision as the award citations were read....The dinner, as a whole, was probably the worst of its type I have attended....I don't want any of our naive staff members to give you any impression that as a result of my going there and sitting through three hours of pure boredom and insults, I thereby proved I was the 'good sport' and thereby may have softened some of the press attitude towards the President.  On the contrary, the type of people who are in the press corps have nothing but contempt for those who get down to their level and who accept such treatment without striking back.  That's one of the reasons they have some respect for [Vice-President Spiro] Agnew [who spoke against the media.]"

That quote of Nixon inspires me to ask a question: When should one stand up for oneself, and when does doing so make a person look humorless, insecure, and whiny?  There are times when standing up for oneself can earn respect, but there are times when it might not.  What should Nixon have done at that White House Correspondents Dinner, as people were being awarded for scathing pieces about his Administration, in his very presence?  That would be pretty awkward, wouldn't it?

President Nixon: Alone in the White House 10

On page 307 of President Nixon: Alone in the White House, Richard Reeves states:

"[President Richard Nixon] ordered Admiral Moorer to have Calley released from the stockade at Fort Brenning and allowed to live in his apartment at the base, given the freedom of the base, while the trial and verdict were under appeal.  When he hung up the phone, he said, 'That's the only place where they say, 'Yes, Sir,' instead of 'Yes, but...''"

The context here is the trial of Lt. William Calley, who was on trial for the My Lai massacre, in which American soldiers in Vietnam massacred unarmed Vietnamese civilians, including elderly people, women, and children.  Nixon pushed for Calley to be moved from the stockade to his apartment during the appeal of Calley's trial.

While I have reservations about Nixon's decision in this case, I somewhat identify with how he liked the military because it told him "Yes, Sir" rather than "Yes, but..."  I myself don't like being questioned and nitpicked all of the time.  Yet, come to think of it, there are plenty of times when I don't mind questioning and nitpicking others!  But, sometimes, I would just like things to be simple, without someone coming along and muddying the waters.

But maybe this was a case in which someone should have said to Nixon "Yes, but" rather than "Yes sir."  Come to think of it, the American soldiers in My Lai would have done well to tell Calley "Yes, but", or even "no."  There are times when we need confrontation.  But there are also times when a decision has to be made, even if it's imperfect, when "Yes, but" has to come to an end and we have to make a decision about what we will do.  And then there are times when a decision has been made, and we may choose not to obey the authorities because we believe they are asking us to do something immoral.

President Nixon: Alone in the White House 9

On page 287 of President Nixon: Alone in the White House, Richard Reeves states:

"If that deficit spending would entice more private spending, by both corporations and consumers, then the Republican president was now ready to buy into the pump-priming theories of John Maynard Keynes, the British economist, patron saint of liberal economists and big-spending politicians.  But that did not change the fact that most of the men around him were still conservatives who had always seen inflation as the true devil."

When I read this, I thought about the West Wing episodes, "Memorial Day" (from Season 5) and "NSF Thurmont" (from Season 6).  In these episodes, President Jed Bartlett and his Chief-of-Staff, Leo McGarry, are on different pages on how to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  In Bartlett's earlier days in the White House, Leo was his mentor when it came to foreign policy, for President Bartlett was not as experienced in that field.  By the end of Season 5, however, President Bartlett had his own ideas about the Middle East, and Leo recognized that it may have come to the point where President Bartlett might not value his counsel, for the two of them were on different pages.

This reportedly occurs in real life, too.  President George W. Bush supposedly relied on Vice-President Dick Cheney's counsel on foreign policy in the early days of his Administration, but it got to the point where the two of them diverged.  Cheney supported strikes on Syria, for example, whereas President Bush did not.  I've even read talk that Bush was briefly considering replacing Cheney with Senator Bill Frist!  On certain issues, Bush and Cheney were on different pages.

I read an article recently about how Christians become apostates (non-Christians).  One factor that the author mentioned is that the Christians surround themselves with non-believers, such as atheists or non-Christian Jews.  That may be a contributing factor, but I think that there are many cases in which it's the other way around: that a person becomes uncomfortable with the Christian faith, due to intellectual doubts or other factors, and that person then finds that he or she does not quite fit into the Christian community anymore.  That person then seeks out people who are on the same page.

President Nixon: Alone in the White House 8

On pages 262-263 of President Nixon: Alone in the White House, Richard Reeves talks about inflation:

"But Nixonomics was shot down by Nixon----and by some bad luck.  The 'Nixon Game Plan,' as it was called in the beginning, was pretty basic Republican economics...The idea was to hold down federal spending while the Federal Reserve Board restricted money supply enough to cut demand enough to raise unemployment enough to moderate wages and prices enough to stabilize inflation."

Well, I suppose that's one way to get wages down: to increase unemployment so that more people are competing for jobs, and employers can then offer lower wages because people will be willing to work for virtually anything.  But that doesn't sound particularly humane.  Of course, the end-goal would be lower inflation, which would allow people to buy more and for their dollars to stretch farther.  Perhaps the idea is that then the economy would pick up, as people took advantage of the lower prices, and employment would go back up.

Of course, Nixon did not follow this policy consistently, for there were times when he favored expanding the money supply to improve the economy, whereas Federal Reserve chairman Arthur Burns favored a more restrictive monetary policy.

Does restricting the money supply and increasing interest rates necessarily lead to lower inflation?  It can, as occurred during Paul Volker's tenure as Federal Reserve chairman.  But perhaps one can also argue that an expanded money supply and lower interest rates can stimulate the economy, result in increased production of goods, and thus enable supply to overtake demand, thereby controlling inflation.  But, then again, what if businesses choose to take advantage of high prices to make money?  Would there be an incentive for them not to produce in such a manner that supply would overtake demand?

Anyway, those are my non-economist economic ramblings for the day.

President Nixon: Alone in the White House 7

On page 221 of President Nixon: Alone in the White House, Richard Reeves talks about a time that H.R. Haldeman was waiting for President Richard Nixon.  Nixon had just met with anti-war students at the Lincoln Memorial in the wee hours of the morning, then Nixon went to the Capitol building and talked with some cleaning women.  Haldeman was wondering where Nixon was.  Eventually, Haldeman and some staff were waiting for Nixon outside of the Capitol building, but Nixon was not through with his little adventure.  Nixon wanted to get some breakfast at a place on Connecticut Avenue.  When Nixon found that it was closed, he ate at the Rib Room in the Mayflower Hotel, talking with the waitresses, whom Reeves says were "flabbergasted".

Apparently, according to Reeves, this was not the first time that Haldeman had this sort of experience with Nixon.  Reeves states:

"[Haldeman] had spent many long nights during campaigns walking strange streets looking for candidate Nixon in strange cities.  The candidate would disappear for hours after midnight and Haldeman usually found him huddled in the corner booth of a caf[e], drinking coffee alone."

I loved this passage.  I think that Nixon should have been a little more considerate towards Haldeman, but I can identify with wanting to get out of one's routine to have a little adventure, to be spontaneous, or maybe even to be alone.

President Nixon: Alone in the White House 6

On page 196 of President Nixon: Alone in the White House, Richard Reeves quotes a memo from President Richard Nixon, in which Nixon proposes a way to move young people away from the V-sign, long hair, and marijuana:

"One thing you might lean on is the utter silliness of youth using the V signal.  Point out this is old hat.  After all, this is a relic of Churchill and World War 2....As far as haircuts are concerned, you can really demolish them on this.  Point out that they are 25 to 50 years behind the time.  Old Tom Connally, Mendel Rivers, Senator Clyde Hoey of North Carolina and conservatives like Les Arends today have worn their hair long for the last half a century.  Make it 'out' to wear long hair, smoke pot and go on the needle.  Make it 'in' to indulge in lesser vices, smoking (cigars, preferably non-Castro!) and alcohol in reasonable quantities...."

The stereotype that I get when watching TV shows about the 1970's is that the counterculture wore long hair and smoked marijuana, whereas the Nixon supporters (young and old) wore short hair.  There was probably some truth to this, for Nixon obviously was trying to move more young people in the latter direction!  But what's interesting to me is that Nixon mentions a conservative who wore his hair long.  I don't see that in this picture of Les Arends, but this passage from the book Soldiers Back Home says that Arends wore his hair long, as Arends "moved with the grace and panache of a proud Indian chief."  Why did Arends wear his hair long?  To be like a Native American chief?  Out of a libertarian-like desire to be free and to do his own thing?

President Nixon: Alone in the White House 5

On page 186 of President Nixon: Alone in the White House, Richard Reeves talks about a slight disagreement that President Richard Nixon had with his aide, H.R. Haldeman.  Nixon's approval rating had dropped, and Haldeman suggested that Nixon go on television more so that people would see that Nixon was in charge.  But Nixon did not think that he should go on television when he did not have much to say, but rather that he should show leadership during prominent events.

When I read this, I thought of Jerry Voorhis' complaint in his anti-Nixon book, The Strange Case of Richard Milhous Nixon, that Nixon was on TV too much.  Maybe Nixon was taking Haldeman's advice, at some point, notwithstanding his own reservations!

I also thought about the pressure on people to talk to get noticed.  For a lot of people, this is not pressure, since they love to talk.  I, on the other hand, do not always have things to say, and I do not like feeling pressured to talk to get noticed.  Moreover, as I've complained more than once on this blog, even when I do talk----and (in my mind) talk a great deal----I'm still seen as someone who doesn't talk much, or I get ignored.  So what can I do?

I also thought about the issue of blogging.  Before I started blogging, I was hungering for some way to express myself.  I had read books and had thoughts about them.  The same goes for TV series and movies.  I had political opinions, and I was seeking an outlet for those through letters to the editor, some of which were published, and some of which were not.  Now, six years into blogging, I don't particularly feel like commenting on everything under the sun, or even having an opinion about everything under the sun.  Moreover, there are times when I may have something to say, but who really cares?  I can write and be alone in my opinion, so what's the point in expressing it?

Anyway, those are my insights, mixed with my self-pity!  I'll be turning off the comments because I don't want to read people's snark.

President Nixon: Alone in the White House 4

On pages 137-138 of President Nixon: Alone in the White House, Richard Reeves talks about the children of prominent Nixon White House workers who were protesting against the Vietnam War.  (I mean that the children were protesting, not the workers.)  Reeves states:

"Two of Ehrlichman's children were demonstrating at their schools.  Haldeman's daughter Susan was demonstrating at Stanford in Palo Alto, California, along with Ehrlichman's son Peter.  Vice President Agnew's fourteen-year-old daughter Kim wanted to join the crowds, but he was able to stop her.  William Watts, a Kissinger assistant working on the November 3 speech, came up from his National Security Council office for fresh air and saw his wife and daughter walk by outside the White House fence holding their candles."

This was interesting to me, the same way that the political ideology of Richard Nixon's daughters, Julie and Tricia, has been interesting to me.  By and large, Julie and Tricia stood by their father's Vietnam policy.  But the children of some prominent people within the Nixon White House, such as H.R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, and Vice President Spiro Agnew, were against the war.  What was that like: for the children to disagree with their father politically?  Did that disrupt the children's relationship with their father?  Were these children like Patti Davis, one of Ronald Reagan's daughters, who was allegedly resentful of her father's conservatism, and seemed to make no bones about challenging her father in public?

I was not able to do a thorough research project on this question, but I found a couple of things.  This passage from the book Anti-Americanism: Historical Perspectives talks about how disagreement about the Vietnam War was common in a number of conservatives' families.  William F. Buckley, Jr. was defending a hawkish approach to the Vietnam War, but his son Christopher got student deferments from the draft.  Pat Buchanan's brother, Brian, participated in anti-war protests as a Xavier College student.  (Come to think of it, I do recall Pat talking in Right from the Beginning about debates he would have about the Vietnam War at his father's meal-table.)  Susan Haldeman not only protested against the Vietnam War, but that passage states that she actually visited Chile to support its leftist leader, Salvador Allende.

The thing is, though, from what I have read online, it does not seem to me that Susan Haldeman expressed any public hostility towards her father.  Rather, she seemed to be loyal to him.  Her brother Peter wrote, "In the spring, just before my father resigned, a reporter had tracked down my sister at college; the interview ran in a local paper under the headline 'Susie Haldeman Calls Her Father a 'Fun Guy.''"  I recently found H.R. Haldeman's The Ends of Power at a local library giveaway, and, while I did not read all of it, I stumbled upon one part of the book where Haldeman talks affectionately about his children.  He says that they liked the comic strip Doonesbury (which, as you may know, is very left-wing), and H.R. Haldeman requested from its writer, Gary Trudeau, some originals of the strips that made fun of him (H.R. Haldeman), so that Haldeman could frame them.  I realize that H.R. Haldeman would repudiate parts of The Ends of Power and blame them on his co-author, but I'd like to think that this story is true and that he had a good relationship with his children, even though there may have been political disagreements.

President Nixon: Alone in the White House 3

My theme in today's post will be liking and disliking people.

According to more than one book about Richard Nixon that I have read, Nixon did not like the media.  As I read more of Richard Reeves' President Nixon: Alone in the White House, I could see why.  Reeves talks about how a New York Times editorial was quite critical of Nixon for calling the astronauts who landed on the moon, saying that Nixon was wasting their valuable time and was trying to steal glory from the previous Johnson and Kennedy Administrations.  As I read that, I could understand why Nixon hated the media.  I mean, how petty can you get?  Can't the President call astronauts who were doing something historically significant, without being nitpicked for that?

But there were disadvantages to Nixon's dislike for the media, as justifiable as it may have been.  Reeves says that Pat Nixon was disappointed that the media were not doing any personal stories about Nixon, that they did not know about, say, Nixon's sense of humor.  But Reeves said that people in the media were claiming that they wanted access to Nixon, but they were not getting it because Nixon was shutting them out.  How can they do personal stories about Nixon, if they cannot even see Nixon?

What I just now wrote concerned people whom Nixon disliked.  What about people Nixon liked?  In various books that I have read, I see that there were people whom Nixon liked.  Nixon liked his fellows in the Navy and the Southerners with whom he went to law school on account of their patriotism.  He didn't always stay in touch with them, but some have argued that these sorts of attitudes may have shaped his later decisions.  For example, his relationship with the Southerners at Duke Law School convinced him that the South needed to be welcomed back into the union, and that may have influenced his two attempts to appoint Southerners to the Supreme Court.

Where am I going with this?  Well, this information makes me think about whom I like and dislike, and how that affects my relationship with them.  Nixon may have disliked certain elites, while liking the everyday, salt-of-the-earth people.  Are there people I like or dislike?  I think that there are many elderly people who are friendly.  I tend to shy away from my peers, however, since I question whether they are overly accepting.  Often, I wonder if I would have more friends if I actually liked more people.

But, sometimes, it may be necessary to form bridges with people whom one may not particularly like.  Nixon may not have cared for the media, but perhaps the media could have helped him, had he opened up to them more.  Nixon probably had a "screw you" sort of attitude that hindered this, and he might have profited had he seen the media, not as bad, per se, but as people pursuing their own interests, the same way that he could see certain foreign countries, such as the Soviet Union, with whom he dealt constructively.
I could say more, but I'll stop here.

President Nixon: Alone in the White House 2

A point that Richard Reeves makes a couple of times in President Nixon: Alone in the White House is that Richard Nixon did not like people because he assumed that they were like him, with his deviousness and flaws.  That made me wonder: Do I assume that other people are like me, and, if so, would that explain my dislike for a number of them?

At first, I doubted that I have enough empathy to think about what other people are feeling, and thus I would not really be contemplating whether or not they are like me.  I think that it would be a gross mistake to maintain that I, or anyone with Asperger's syndrome, lacks empathy altogether, for I can sympathize with people when they are going through good or bad times, since I remember how I felt when I was going through similar occasions.  But I was wondering to what extent I sit around wondering what makes other people tick.  There are many occasions when I see myself as a victim of other people, whom I believe are rejecting me, rather than trying to put myself in their shoes.

And yet, as I thought some more, I realized that there is a sense in which I do project my own flaws onto other people.  I'm not the most accepting person in the world, and I tend to project that onto others.  In a sense, I may be right, for many people are rather sparing in terms of their acceptance of others.  But my hunch is that I tend to exaggerate the degree to which that exists in other people.