Posts
My blog post today on Stephen Ambrose's Nixon: The Triumph of a Politician, 1962-1972
will concern Ambrose's narration on pages 172-174. The topic of this
post is the impact of Nixon's advisers on Nixon, and the question of
whether Nixon's Presidency would have been better had Bob Finch rather
than Spiro T. Agnew been Nixon's Vice-President. The setting is
July-August 1968.
On page 172, Ambrose talks about John Mitchell,
H.R. Haldeman, and John Ehrlichman, who were key men on Nixon's staff.
These three men were fiercely loyal to Nixon, but they had downsides,
according to Ambrose. They had neither run for elective office nor
participated in the compromises that are a part of the legislative
process, and they cynically tended to ascribe horrible motives to their
political enemies. According to Ambrose, there was a disadvantage to
Nixon surrounding himself with such vindictive men, namely, that they
fed into Nixon's own vindictiveness:
"From top to bottom, the
staff consisted of men who were vindictive. For Nixon, this was highly
dangerous, because he was also a vindictive man, with a long memory and a
deep capacity to hate. By surrounding himself with vindictive types,
Nixon encouraged within himself one of his worst and most self-harmful
characteristics."
But Ambrose speculates about whether things
would have been a little better for Nixon had Bob Finch been Nixon's
Vice-President. Nixon liked Agnew back when Nixon was looking for a
running mate, for the reasons that I mentioned when I was blogging
through Jules Witcover's Very Strange Bedfellows: Agnew's
confidence, his record as a moderate, and his tough stance on
law-and-order. But Nixon actually asked Bob Finch to be his running
mate before making the offer to Agnew.
Finch is this man.
At the time, he was the Lieutenant Governor of California. Finch was
very close to Nixon personally. For that reason, Mitchell was advising
Nixon not to pick Finch, saying it would be "nepotism", which Mitchell
was confusing with cronyism. But Nixon asked Finch anyway, saying that
Finch had "youth and freshness, and...would have great appeal to the
party and to independent voters" (Nixon, as quoted on page 173). But
Finch turned Nixon down for a variety of reasons. First, Finch thought
that going from being a Lieutenant Governor to being the Vice-President
of the United States was too great of a leap. Second, Finch agreed with
Mitchell's concern that people would regard Nixon's selection of him
(meaning Finch) as cronyism. Third, Finch was a rival to Ronald Reagan
in California, so Finch thought that Nixon's selection of Finch would be
a turnoff to "Reagan's people" (Ambrose's words). And, fourth, Finch
was concerned about the possible impact of a national campaign on his
own family. Finch's kids were getting taunted by antiwar students at
school. How much worse would a national campaign be for them?
And
so Nixon picked Agnew, one who shot-from-the hip and proved to be a
polarizing figure. Ambrose asks a question: "What if Finch had said
yes?" Ambrose says on pages 172-173:
"Big, sandy-haired, casual
and relaxed, good-looking and easy-going, Finch was the opposite of
Agnew. Finch's instinct was to bring people together, not drive them
apart. Finch's method of operation was to study a problem thoroughly
before speaking on it, not shoot from the hip. Finch had a broad sense
of humor and often laughed at himself. Finch distrusted ideology; he
was a pragmatist who sought progress through compromise and
negotiation. Finch combined a warm human sympathy with a basic common
sense. And the biggest differences of all between Finch and Agnew were
these: Finch was sensitive to the feelings of others and not at all
vindictive. Aside from these personality differences, there was another
important one: Nixon liked and trusted Finch, and would listen to him.
Not necessarily respond, but at least listen."
Would a
Vice-President Finch have persuaded Nixon to listen more to his angels
rather than his demons? That's a good question. The wikipedia article
on Finch says that Finch in 1970 was Counselor to the President. Yet,
the problems in Nixon's Presidency remained.
Showing posts with label Very Strange Bedfellows. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Very Strange Bedfellows. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Friday, May 17, 2013
Ambrose's Nixon: The Triumph of a Politician 1
I started Stephen Ambrose's Nixon: The Triumph of a Politician, 1962-1972. This is the second of a three-volume series on the life of Richard Nixon.
Ambrose is such a gifted writer, that I could probably pick something on every page of his book and write a blog post about it. But I'll focus on four items for today's post.
1. The Foreword to the book had a couple of gems on the topic of memoirs. On page 9, Ambrose says that Nixon's memoirs "are voluminous, detailed, sometimes almost embarrassingly revealing (certainly more so than any other President's memoirs), and usually reliable on statements of fact." That was my impression, too, when I read the memoirs. Nixon comes across as rather cynical and ruthless in his memoirs, and, even in his own account of Watergate, he does not exactly come off smelling like a rose. At the same time, I think that Nixon also tries to portray himself as an empathetic, compassionate human being. I tend to agree with Jules Witcover's statement in his book on Nixon's relationship with his first Vice-President, Spiro Agnew, entitled Very Strange Bedfellows, that Nixon in his memoirs depicts himself as a benign observer during Agnew's scandals, when Witcover argues that Nixon actually wanted Agnew out of office.
On page 10, Ambrose says: "No other Administration in American history has produced so much in the way of memoirs by the participants as the Nixon Administration. The reason, at least in part, is obvious: in no other Administration did so many members need so much money for such horrendous legal fees." I'm not sure if Ambrose is correct about the number of memoirs by an Administration's participants, since there were a lot of books by people in the Reagan Administration. And, some time after this book by Ambrose, a number of big players in George W. Bush's Administration have written memoirs. But Ambrose's comments on page 10 remind me that I have so many books to choose from when it comes to my Year (or More) of Nixon.
2. After Nixon lost the 1962 California gubernatorial election and told reporters that they wouldn't have Nixon to kick around anymore, Nixon moved to New York City to work for a legal firm. But, according to Ambrose, Nixon was not over when it came to politics, notwithstanding what he had told those reporters, for Nixon continued to hold press conferences, go to foreign countries, campaign for Republicans, form contacts, and write. Nixon was one of the foremost critics of the Kennedy Administration. By moving to New York, Nixon was trying to give the impression that he was truly over with politics, since New York was liberal Republican Nelson Rockefeller's territory. And yet, while Nixon was alienated from the state Republican party, he continued to associate with prominent Republicans in New York City who had worked in the Eisenhower Administration. According to Ambrose, "These New York City Republicans...got [Nixon] into the best clubs, introduced him to the best society, sent business his way" (page 25). Henry Kissinger remembers it differently, saying that Nixon was shunned by the elite in New York City, exasperating Nixon's feeling that he was "beset by enemies" (Kissinger, as quoted on page 25). But Ambrose says that Nixon actually "turned down more invitations than he accepted", and that Kissinger's recollection was due to Kissinger's movement within "different circles" (page 25).
Nixon was solidifying and forming contacts, even in New York City. Yet, according to Ambrose, Nixon also spent more evenings at home, spending time with his family and increasing his political and historical knowledge by reading books.
3. On page 23, Ambrose quotes Nixon as saying in 1963: "Too many people today are gloating publicly because the Chinese Communists and the Soviet Communists are having an argument. What they fail to realize is that this argument is not about how they can beat each other, but how they could beat us."
This was what Nixon was saying about the Sino-Soviet rift in 1963. He would come to believe, however, that the United States should reach out to Red China and exploit its rift with the Soviets, out of a sense that the Red Chinese were too vulnerable to try to beat the United States.
4. On pages 34-35, Ambrose describes how the U.S. saw itself, and how a number of others saw the U.S., right after World War II:
"American moral superiority was based, above all else, on the heritage of World War II. At the end of the war, America's prestige had never been higher. The U.S. had provided the tools and the men to save Europe and Russia from Hitler and his Nazis. The U.S. had driven the Japanese out of China, Indochina, Burma, Korea, the Philippines. The U.S. had given the Philippines independence, without forcing the Filipinos to wage a war of national liberation to achieve it. America had asked for nothing for itself in return. Ho Chi Minh, leader of the Vietminh in Vietnam at that time, hailed the Americans as the true friends of the oppressed of the earth. So did such dissimilar men as Charles de Gaulle, Churchill, and on one occasion even Stalin himself. In a world full of hatred, death, destruction, deception, and double-dealing, the United States at the end of World War II was almost universally regarded as the disinterested champion of justice, freedom, and democracy."
What got my attention was that Ho Chi Minh, and even Stalin himself at one time, regarded the United States as a force for good. I have my doubts that this was the sum-total of their views on the United States, though.
Ambrose is such a gifted writer, that I could probably pick something on every page of his book and write a blog post about it. But I'll focus on four items for today's post.
1. The Foreword to the book had a couple of gems on the topic of memoirs. On page 9, Ambrose says that Nixon's memoirs "are voluminous, detailed, sometimes almost embarrassingly revealing (certainly more so than any other President's memoirs), and usually reliable on statements of fact." That was my impression, too, when I read the memoirs. Nixon comes across as rather cynical and ruthless in his memoirs, and, even in his own account of Watergate, he does not exactly come off smelling like a rose. At the same time, I think that Nixon also tries to portray himself as an empathetic, compassionate human being. I tend to agree with Jules Witcover's statement in his book on Nixon's relationship with his first Vice-President, Spiro Agnew, entitled Very Strange Bedfellows, that Nixon in his memoirs depicts himself as a benign observer during Agnew's scandals, when Witcover argues that Nixon actually wanted Agnew out of office.
On page 10, Ambrose says: "No other Administration in American history has produced so much in the way of memoirs by the participants as the Nixon Administration. The reason, at least in part, is obvious: in no other Administration did so many members need so much money for such horrendous legal fees." I'm not sure if Ambrose is correct about the number of memoirs by an Administration's participants, since there were a lot of books by people in the Reagan Administration. And, some time after this book by Ambrose, a number of big players in George W. Bush's Administration have written memoirs. But Ambrose's comments on page 10 remind me that I have so many books to choose from when it comes to my Year (or More) of Nixon.
2. After Nixon lost the 1962 California gubernatorial election and told reporters that they wouldn't have Nixon to kick around anymore, Nixon moved to New York City to work for a legal firm. But, according to Ambrose, Nixon was not over when it came to politics, notwithstanding what he had told those reporters, for Nixon continued to hold press conferences, go to foreign countries, campaign for Republicans, form contacts, and write. Nixon was one of the foremost critics of the Kennedy Administration. By moving to New York, Nixon was trying to give the impression that he was truly over with politics, since New York was liberal Republican Nelson Rockefeller's territory. And yet, while Nixon was alienated from the state Republican party, he continued to associate with prominent Republicans in New York City who had worked in the Eisenhower Administration. According to Ambrose, "These New York City Republicans...got [Nixon] into the best clubs, introduced him to the best society, sent business his way" (page 25). Henry Kissinger remembers it differently, saying that Nixon was shunned by the elite in New York City, exasperating Nixon's feeling that he was "beset by enemies" (Kissinger, as quoted on page 25). But Ambrose says that Nixon actually "turned down more invitations than he accepted", and that Kissinger's recollection was due to Kissinger's movement within "different circles" (page 25).
Nixon was solidifying and forming contacts, even in New York City. Yet, according to Ambrose, Nixon also spent more evenings at home, spending time with his family and increasing his political and historical knowledge by reading books.
3. On page 23, Ambrose quotes Nixon as saying in 1963: "Too many people today are gloating publicly because the Chinese Communists and the Soviet Communists are having an argument. What they fail to realize is that this argument is not about how they can beat each other, but how they could beat us."
This was what Nixon was saying about the Sino-Soviet rift in 1963. He would come to believe, however, that the United States should reach out to Red China and exploit its rift with the Soviets, out of a sense that the Red Chinese were too vulnerable to try to beat the United States.
4. On pages 34-35, Ambrose describes how the U.S. saw itself, and how a number of others saw the U.S., right after World War II:
"American moral superiority was based, above all else, on the heritage of World War II. At the end of the war, America's prestige had never been higher. The U.S. had provided the tools and the men to save Europe and Russia from Hitler and his Nazis. The U.S. had driven the Japanese out of China, Indochina, Burma, Korea, the Philippines. The U.S. had given the Philippines independence, without forcing the Filipinos to wage a war of national liberation to achieve it. America had asked for nothing for itself in return. Ho Chi Minh, leader of the Vietminh in Vietnam at that time, hailed the Americans as the true friends of the oppressed of the earth. So did such dissimilar men as Charles de Gaulle, Churchill, and on one occasion even Stalin himself. In a world full of hatred, death, destruction, deception, and double-dealing, the United States at the end of World War II was almost universally regarded as the disinterested champion of justice, freedom, and democracy."
What got my attention was that Ho Chi Minh, and even Stalin himself at one time, regarded the United States as a force for good. I have my doubts that this was the sum-total of their views on the United States, though.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Very Strange Bedfellows 9
I finished Jules Witcover's Very Strange Bedfellows: The Short and Unhappy Marriage of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew.
The beginning of the book was good because it described what attracted Richard Nixon to Spiro Agnew. That reminds me of Stephen King books, many Presidential administrations, or even a number of romantic relationships: you have a cheery and auspicious beginning, but you as an observer have a hunch (or maybe even know) that events will take a down-turn. The middle of the book was all right. It had technicalities that were important to the book's topic----such as the legal question of whether a Vice-President could be impeached like the President----but these technicalities didn't particularly interest me. Moreover, Witcover tended to go over the same topics over and over, such as Nixon's love for John Connally, Spiro Agnew being a loose cannon, Nixon's desire to drop Agnew from the Vice-Presidency, Agnew's popularity, Nixon's insecurities, how Agnew didn't like Nixon communicating to him via an intermediary, and others. I'm not saying that Witcover was being redundant, for Witcover was discussing different situations that illustrated these topics. But, after a certain point, the topics started to bore me.
The book ended really strongly, however. It talked about Agnew's struggles and projects after leaving the Vice-Presidency, and how Agnew was welcomed in Washington, D.C. when he later visited it. Witcover also discusses the Vice-Presidency. Agnew was Nixon's Vice-President but did not play a key role in advising President Nixon, plus Nixon did not feel that Agnew would be fit to replace him as President. After Nixon, there were Presidents who chose experienced people as Vice-Presidents: Gerald Ford selected Nelson Rockefeller, Jimmy Carter picked Walter Mondale, Ronald Reagan picked George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush had Dick Cheney (who was actually rumored to be the real guy in power). But there was an exception: George H.W. Bush picked Dan Quayle. And yet, Witcover notes, Bush I included Quayle in policy-deliberations more often than Nixon included Agnew.
I'll close this post with a story that I found particularly funny. On page 360, Witcover narrates the following:
"My last personal encounter with Agnew came shortly afterward, when I spied him at a table with friends, later identified by him as some old Secret Service agents, at a restaurant in a downtown Washington hotel near the Post. I walked over and, admittedly somewhat mischievously, proposed that I write another book telling his side of the resignation story. In the book he subsequently wrote himself, he described his reaction: 'I burst out laughing every time I think of that incident. After dipping his pen in poison to write two books about me, Witcover had the nerve to ask me to help him write another!' I took that as a 'No.'"
The beginning of the book was good because it described what attracted Richard Nixon to Spiro Agnew. That reminds me of Stephen King books, many Presidential administrations, or even a number of romantic relationships: you have a cheery and auspicious beginning, but you as an observer have a hunch (or maybe even know) that events will take a down-turn. The middle of the book was all right. It had technicalities that were important to the book's topic----such as the legal question of whether a Vice-President could be impeached like the President----but these technicalities didn't particularly interest me. Moreover, Witcover tended to go over the same topics over and over, such as Nixon's love for John Connally, Spiro Agnew being a loose cannon, Nixon's desire to drop Agnew from the Vice-Presidency, Agnew's popularity, Nixon's insecurities, how Agnew didn't like Nixon communicating to him via an intermediary, and others. I'm not saying that Witcover was being redundant, for Witcover was discussing different situations that illustrated these topics. But, after a certain point, the topics started to bore me.
The book ended really strongly, however. It talked about Agnew's struggles and projects after leaving the Vice-Presidency, and how Agnew was welcomed in Washington, D.C. when he later visited it. Witcover also discusses the Vice-Presidency. Agnew was Nixon's Vice-President but did not play a key role in advising President Nixon, plus Nixon did not feel that Agnew would be fit to replace him as President. After Nixon, there were Presidents who chose experienced people as Vice-Presidents: Gerald Ford selected Nelson Rockefeller, Jimmy Carter picked Walter Mondale, Ronald Reagan picked George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush had Dick Cheney (who was actually rumored to be the real guy in power). But there was an exception: George H.W. Bush picked Dan Quayle. And yet, Witcover notes, Bush I included Quayle in policy-deliberations more often than Nixon included Agnew.
I'll close this post with a story that I found particularly funny. On page 360, Witcover narrates the following:
"My last personal encounter with Agnew came shortly afterward, when I spied him at a table with friends, later identified by him as some old Secret Service agents, at a restaurant in a downtown Washington hotel near the Post. I walked over and, admittedly somewhat mischievously, proposed that I write another book telling his side of the resignation story. In the book he subsequently wrote himself, he described his reaction: 'I burst out laughing every time I think of that incident. After dipping his pen in poison to write two books about me, Witcover had the nerve to ask me to help him write another!' I took that as a 'No.'"
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Very Strange Bedfellows 8
In my post today on Jules Witcover's Very Strange Bedfellows: The Short and Unhappy Marriage of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, I'll focus on Richard Nixon's interactions with Spiro Agnew.
Witcover essentially portrays Nixon as someone who was nice and supportive towards Agnew to Agnew's face, but was seeking Agnew's removal from the Vice-Presidency behind his back. Moreover, Agnew did not feel that Nixon really came to bat for him during his (meaning Agnew's) legal problems. Agnew had a hard time forgiving this. Nixon did reach out to Agnew after Agnew left office, sending Agnew notes, trying to call him on the telephone, and even giving Agnew the chair where Agnew sat at the Cabinet table. But Agnew did not take Nixon's calls.
A characteristic of Nixon throughout Witcover's book is that Nixon did not like to confront people directly, sending intermediaries to do that for him. Plus, according to Witcover's narrative, Nixon, when he was interacting with people who wanted from him something that he was not willing to provide them, tended to give them the run-around rather than a straight answer. Witcover does not say this, but my hunch, based on other books that I have read by and about Richard Nixon, is that Nixon's relationship with his father had something to do with this. Nixon's father, Frank Nixon, was an opinionated and confrontational man. Frank would get into arguments with Nixon's brothers, and Nixon says in his memoirs that this influenced him (Richard) to desire peace. Nixon probably learned that he didn't like confrontation, and so Nixon came to avoid it by sending intermediaries to confront for him, and by giving people the run-around when they confronted him.
I think also of Bruce Mazlish's claim in In Search of Nixon that Nixon sees himself as a fair-minded man. In my opinion, Nixon regarded himself as a compassionate person, and that could have been why he was reaching out to Agnew even after Agnew left the Vice-Presidency. And yet, Nixon also seems to have seen himself as a political realist. That's how he could undermine Agnew behind the scenes (if it's true that he did that), while reaching out to Agnew when Agnew was down.
I'd like to close this post with a moving story from wikipedia's article about Agnew: "As a gesture of reconciliation, Nixon's daughters invited Agnew to attend Nixon's funeral in 1994, and Agnew accepted. In 1996, when Agnew died, Nixon's daughters returned the favor by attending Agnew's funeral." According to Witcover, Agnew did not want to attend Nixon's funeral because of his bitterness towards Nixon, but Agnew was persuaded to do so because he had been Nixon's Vice-President, so his absence from the funeral would be conspicuous. I think that it was a class act for Nixon's daughters to then attend Agnew's funeral after Agnew died.
Witcover essentially portrays Nixon as someone who was nice and supportive towards Agnew to Agnew's face, but was seeking Agnew's removal from the Vice-Presidency behind his back. Moreover, Agnew did not feel that Nixon really came to bat for him during his (meaning Agnew's) legal problems. Agnew had a hard time forgiving this. Nixon did reach out to Agnew after Agnew left office, sending Agnew notes, trying to call him on the telephone, and even giving Agnew the chair where Agnew sat at the Cabinet table. But Agnew did not take Nixon's calls.
A characteristic of Nixon throughout Witcover's book is that Nixon did not like to confront people directly, sending intermediaries to do that for him. Plus, according to Witcover's narrative, Nixon, when he was interacting with people who wanted from him something that he was not willing to provide them, tended to give them the run-around rather than a straight answer. Witcover does not say this, but my hunch, based on other books that I have read by and about Richard Nixon, is that Nixon's relationship with his father had something to do with this. Nixon's father, Frank Nixon, was an opinionated and confrontational man. Frank would get into arguments with Nixon's brothers, and Nixon says in his memoirs that this influenced him (Richard) to desire peace. Nixon probably learned that he didn't like confrontation, and so Nixon came to avoid it by sending intermediaries to confront for him, and by giving people the run-around when they confronted him.
I think also of Bruce Mazlish's claim in In Search of Nixon that Nixon sees himself as a fair-minded man. In my opinion, Nixon regarded himself as a compassionate person, and that could have been why he was reaching out to Agnew even after Agnew left the Vice-Presidency. And yet, Nixon also seems to have seen himself as a political realist. That's how he could undermine Agnew behind the scenes (if it's true that he did that), while reaching out to Agnew when Agnew was down.
I'd like to close this post with a moving story from wikipedia's article about Agnew: "As a gesture of reconciliation, Nixon's daughters invited Agnew to attend Nixon's funeral in 1994, and Agnew accepted. In 1996, when Agnew died, Nixon's daughters returned the favor by attending Agnew's funeral." According to Witcover, Agnew did not want to attend Nixon's funeral because of his bitterness towards Nixon, but Agnew was persuaded to do so because he had been Nixon's Vice-President, so his absence from the funeral would be conspicuous. I think that it was a class act for Nixon's daughters to then attend Agnew's funeral after Agnew died.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Very Strange Bedfellows 7
In my latest reading of Jules Witcover's Very Strange Bedfellows: The Short and Unhappy Marriage of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, the focus was on Watergate as well as Vice-President Spiro Agnew's legal problems.
Agnew was accused of taking kickbacks from contractors in exchange for providing them with contracts. Agnew allegedly did this as Governor of Maryland, but the charge was also that he was continuing to receive kickbacks as Vice-President, as the contractors continued to demonstrate their gratitude for Agnew's help over the years. From what I gathered in reading Witcover, Agnew had a variety of responses to these charges. For one, he said that he was receiving campaign contributions, not kickbacks. Second, he blamed the corruption in question on one of his subordinates, whom Agnew happened to bring with him to Washington, D.C. when he (Agnew) became Vice-President. And third, Agnew alleged that certain people in Maryland were conjuring up stories about Agnew in order to get themselves legally off the hook on charges regarding corruption. I should also note that, in Witcover's book, Agnew appears to be surprised to learn of the allegation that he continued to receive kickbacks as Vice-President (but I don't recall offhand if Witcover was the one narrating this, or if he was quoting somebody else).
Eventually, Nixon's Chief-of-Staff, Alexander Haig, pressured Agnew to resign. But, for a while, Nixon and some of his key advisers wanted to keep Agnew on as Vice-President. The reason was that they regarded Agnew as insurance for Nixon: the Democratic Congress would be reluctant to remove Nixon from office for Watergate, were Agnew to be Nixon's replacement as President, for the Congress definitely did not want a President Agnew! Agnew thought this was because he was so conservative, and that may have been part of the reason. But I also infer from Witcover's book that many people just did not think that Agnew was Presidential material, and this included Nixon, a number of prominent Nixon aides, and others.
John Damgard, who was an aide to Agnew, related that Agnew felt that Nixon tried to save his own skin by offering up Agnew. If the Congress spent a lot of time on Agnew's impeachment, the reasoning supposedly was, it wouldn't have the motivation to go on to impeach Nixon. Why Nixon (or, more accurately, Haig, under Nixon's possible direction) went on to ask for Agnew's resignation rather than allowing Agnew to stay on as VP and be impeached, I'm not entirely sure. Perhaps it was because Agnew's case in court was appearing to be such a lost cause for Agnew, that Nixon would have had to demand his resignation, in order not to look bad.
In writing about Witcover's book, I've talked about Agnew's popularity. In Witcover's narration, Agnew kept some of that, even amidst his scandals. Agnew received telegrams from people expressing their support for him, even as some of them criticized Nixon for not supporting Agnew enough----for being out for Nixon alone. When Nixon spoke out about Agnew, Nixon (to Agnew's apparent disappointment) did not mention Agnew's insistence that he (Agnew) was innocent; rather, Nixon praised Agnew's service in speaking candidly about controversial issues. According to Witcover, Nixon was "merely commending [Agnew's] past service in a way that could sustain his own good standing with the vice-president's Silent Majority constituency" (page 329).
Agnew was accused of taking kickbacks from contractors in exchange for providing them with contracts. Agnew allegedly did this as Governor of Maryland, but the charge was also that he was continuing to receive kickbacks as Vice-President, as the contractors continued to demonstrate their gratitude for Agnew's help over the years. From what I gathered in reading Witcover, Agnew had a variety of responses to these charges. For one, he said that he was receiving campaign contributions, not kickbacks. Second, he blamed the corruption in question on one of his subordinates, whom Agnew happened to bring with him to Washington, D.C. when he (Agnew) became Vice-President. And third, Agnew alleged that certain people in Maryland were conjuring up stories about Agnew in order to get themselves legally off the hook on charges regarding corruption. I should also note that, in Witcover's book, Agnew appears to be surprised to learn of the allegation that he continued to receive kickbacks as Vice-President (but I don't recall offhand if Witcover was the one narrating this, or if he was quoting somebody else).
Eventually, Nixon's Chief-of-Staff, Alexander Haig, pressured Agnew to resign. But, for a while, Nixon and some of his key advisers wanted to keep Agnew on as Vice-President. The reason was that they regarded Agnew as insurance for Nixon: the Democratic Congress would be reluctant to remove Nixon from office for Watergate, were Agnew to be Nixon's replacement as President, for the Congress definitely did not want a President Agnew! Agnew thought this was because he was so conservative, and that may have been part of the reason. But I also infer from Witcover's book that many people just did not think that Agnew was Presidential material, and this included Nixon, a number of prominent Nixon aides, and others.
John Damgard, who was an aide to Agnew, related that Agnew felt that Nixon tried to save his own skin by offering up Agnew. If the Congress spent a lot of time on Agnew's impeachment, the reasoning supposedly was, it wouldn't have the motivation to go on to impeach Nixon. Why Nixon (or, more accurately, Haig, under Nixon's possible direction) went on to ask for Agnew's resignation rather than allowing Agnew to stay on as VP and be impeached, I'm not entirely sure. Perhaps it was because Agnew's case in court was appearing to be such a lost cause for Agnew, that Nixon would have had to demand his resignation, in order not to look bad.
In writing about Witcover's book, I've talked about Agnew's popularity. In Witcover's narration, Agnew kept some of that, even amidst his scandals. Agnew received telegrams from people expressing their support for him, even as some of them criticized Nixon for not supporting Agnew enough----for being out for Nixon alone. When Nixon spoke out about Agnew, Nixon (to Agnew's apparent disappointment) did not mention Agnew's insistence that he (Agnew) was innocent; rather, Nixon praised Agnew's service in speaking candidly about controversial issues. According to Witcover, Nixon was "merely commending [Agnew's] past service in a way that could sustain his own good standing with the vice-president's Silent Majority constituency" (page 329).
Monday, May 13, 2013
Very Strange Bedfellows 6
For my write-up today on Jules Witcover's Very Strange Bedfellows: The Short and Unhappy Marriage of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, I'd like to highlight what Witcover on pages 245-246 quotes Nixon advisor H.R. Haldeman as saying:
"We had a 90-minute flap with the VP regarding his seconding speeches, because he decided yesterday to have Dr. Joyce Brothers, the psychologist, be one of the seconders, and they went ahead and asked her. This obviously would be a disaster, in that it would look like he got his own psychiatrist to prove he isn't nuts like Eagleton is."
Thomas Eagleton was Democratic Presidential candidate George McGovern's first running mate in 1972. Eagleton was dropped from the ticket when it was learned that he had been treated for depression. Nixon's Vice-President, Spiro Agnew wanted for Dr. Joyce Brothers to second his own nomination at the Republican convention, but Haldeman thought that wouldn't look too good, for it would look as if Agnew were comparing himself to Eagleton! And I agree, that would be very tacky and insensitive! Agnew was persistent in wanting Dr. Brothers to second his nomination, but Agnew agreed to drop the issue when he learned that the President agreed with Haldeman.
I didn't know anything about Dr. Joyce Brothers' political leanings. She must have been a Nixon supporter. In this column, she talks about what she believes are the strengths and weaknesses of various candidates in 1968, Republican and Democrat.
I learned something interesting about Eagleton while searching the web: he was a pro-life Democrat. See here and here.
"We had a 90-minute flap with the VP regarding his seconding speeches, because he decided yesterday to have Dr. Joyce Brothers, the psychologist, be one of the seconders, and they went ahead and asked her. This obviously would be a disaster, in that it would look like he got his own psychiatrist to prove he isn't nuts like Eagleton is."
Thomas Eagleton was Democratic Presidential candidate George McGovern's first running mate in 1972. Eagleton was dropped from the ticket when it was learned that he had been treated for depression. Nixon's Vice-President, Spiro Agnew wanted for Dr. Joyce Brothers to second his own nomination at the Republican convention, but Haldeman thought that wouldn't look too good, for it would look as if Agnew were comparing himself to Eagleton! And I agree, that would be very tacky and insensitive! Agnew was persistent in wanting Dr. Brothers to second his nomination, but Agnew agreed to drop the issue when he learned that the President agreed with Haldeman.
I didn't know anything about Dr. Joyce Brothers' political leanings. She must have been a Nixon supporter. In this column, she talks about what she believes are the strengths and weaknesses of various candidates in 1968, Republican and Democrat.
I learned something interesting about Eagleton while searching the web: he was a pro-life Democrat. See here and here.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Very Strange Bedfellows 5
For my blog post today on Jules Witcover's Very Strange Bedfellows: The Short and Unhappy Marriage of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, I have five items.
1. On page 186, Nixon criticizes Vice-President Spiro Agnew's fraternization with Secret Service agents:
"In all the period I've been president and vice-president, or eight years prior, I've never had a drink with a Secret Service agent, never. Or lunch, or anything...That's just the way I operate."
In my post here, I was speculating about how Nixon treated the help, based on movies that I had seen about Nixon, as well as some of Nixon's books that I had read. My impression was that Nixon got to know the help, rather than treating them like furniture.
But it turns out that he bragged about not fraternizing with Secret Service agents. Why he would have a problem with that, I'm not entirely sure. Perhaps he felt that they wouldn't respect him as an authority figure and take their jobs as seriously were he to have a drink with them.
Agnew's fraternization with the Secret Service agents stood out to me, for Witcover depicts Agnew as someone who was not particularly social. Yet, Agnew fraternized with Secret Service agents. And Witcover also narrates that Agnew enjoyed socializing with celebrities. I suppose that one can make general observations about people's personalities, but the observations are not necessarily absolute, for there can be exceptions.
2. On page 200, H.R. Haldeman talks about the press's criticism of Agnew for playing golf on a trip to Portugal:
"And what he's done, I'm sure, is he's seen this bad press about the golf and said, 'Screw the bastards,' and gone out and played every day after that...He could have overcome that with just a little [skill]."
My impression is that Nixon probably admired how Agnew gave the middle finger to the press (not literally, but figuratively). But Nixon most likely also thought that Agnew was not being particularly discrete. On page 217, Nixon says that he hates the press even more than Agnew does, but that Agnew needs to stop looking as if he "enjoys fighting the press" (Nixon's words).
3. On page 220, we read about how Frank Sinatra helped Spiro Agnew: "The care and feeding of Frank Sinatra was of particular concern to Agnew at this juncture, because the singer was strongly in his corner in the matter of his place on the 1972 Republican ticket...The stroking worked, in that Sinatra became a major contributor to the Nixon-Agnew campaign fund. According to Agnew aid John Damgard, when speculation grew in 1971 that the vice president might be dropped from the ticket, Sinatra passed the word that there would be no more money from him if that happened. Also, a group of prominent New York conservatives headed by William F. Buckley and calling themselves the Manhattan 12 warned Nixon that heavy contributions from them would be denied if Agnew were jettisoned."
It's interesting that Frank Sinatra was an Agnew supporter, since Sinatra supported John F. Kennedy in 1960.
The reason that I liked this passage is that it highlights a power struggle. Nixon and some of his aides are seriously thinking about dropping Spiro Agnew as Vice-President and replacing him with John Connally. Where would Agnew go if that happened? Nixon and his advisors envisioned a wide-range of possibilities, from Agnew becoming the head of a TV network, to Agnew become a Supreme Court justice (imagine that!).
But dropping Agnew from the ticket would not be easy, for Agnew had his own clout. Agnew was supported by major donors, such as Frank Sinatra and the Manhattan 12. I enjoy reading about powerful people running into roadblocks!
4. John Connally was a Democrat, yet Nixon was thinking of making Connally the Vice-President. According to Nixon advisor John Ehrlichman and author Robert Sam Anson, Nixon was seriously contemplating developing a new political party, which would attract the center and the right and would eventually replace the Republican Party (pages 209-210). It's amazing to me that Nixon was actually thinking about this. It's not exactly a mainstream idea!
What was the outcome of Nixon's desire to replace Agnew with Connally? Essentially, Connally did not want to be Vice-President. Connally was drawn to the power that was in the Presidency, and he would eventually run for President. But he did not feel that the Vice-Presidency was that glamorous of a position. Plus, he wanted to focus on making money. Nixon kept Agnew on the ticket, but, even after winning the 1972 election, Nixon was contemplating dropping Agnew as Vice-President.
5. On pages 237-238, there is a discussion about the Vice-Presidential residence. I saw the Vice-Presidential residence when I went to Washington, D.C. as a child. It surprised me to learn in reading Witcover that the Vice-Presidential residence is rather new. Spiro Agnew did not live in a special home for the Vice-President, but he had an apartment. Nixon was thinking of getting him a special residence but did not get around to it. The Vice-Presidential residence came to be when Nelson Rockefeller was Gerald Ford's Vice-President. Rockefeller was rich, and he had a mansion in Washington, D.C. Rockefeller donated it to the government, and it became the official residence for the Vice-President.
1. On page 186, Nixon criticizes Vice-President Spiro Agnew's fraternization with Secret Service agents:
"In all the period I've been president and vice-president, or eight years prior, I've never had a drink with a Secret Service agent, never. Or lunch, or anything...That's just the way I operate."
In my post here, I was speculating about how Nixon treated the help, based on movies that I had seen about Nixon, as well as some of Nixon's books that I had read. My impression was that Nixon got to know the help, rather than treating them like furniture.
But it turns out that he bragged about not fraternizing with Secret Service agents. Why he would have a problem with that, I'm not entirely sure. Perhaps he felt that they wouldn't respect him as an authority figure and take their jobs as seriously were he to have a drink with them.
Agnew's fraternization with the Secret Service agents stood out to me, for Witcover depicts Agnew as someone who was not particularly social. Yet, Agnew fraternized with Secret Service agents. And Witcover also narrates that Agnew enjoyed socializing with celebrities. I suppose that one can make general observations about people's personalities, but the observations are not necessarily absolute, for there can be exceptions.
2. On page 200, H.R. Haldeman talks about the press's criticism of Agnew for playing golf on a trip to Portugal:
"And what he's done, I'm sure, is he's seen this bad press about the golf and said, 'Screw the bastards,' and gone out and played every day after that...He could have overcome that with just a little [skill]."
My impression is that Nixon probably admired how Agnew gave the middle finger to the press (not literally, but figuratively). But Nixon most likely also thought that Agnew was not being particularly discrete. On page 217, Nixon says that he hates the press even more than Agnew does, but that Agnew needs to stop looking as if he "enjoys fighting the press" (Nixon's words).
3. On page 220, we read about how Frank Sinatra helped Spiro Agnew: "The care and feeding of Frank Sinatra was of particular concern to Agnew at this juncture, because the singer was strongly in his corner in the matter of his place on the 1972 Republican ticket...The stroking worked, in that Sinatra became a major contributor to the Nixon-Agnew campaign fund. According to Agnew aid John Damgard, when speculation grew in 1971 that the vice president might be dropped from the ticket, Sinatra passed the word that there would be no more money from him if that happened. Also, a group of prominent New York conservatives headed by William F. Buckley and calling themselves the Manhattan 12 warned Nixon that heavy contributions from them would be denied if Agnew were jettisoned."
It's interesting that Frank Sinatra was an Agnew supporter, since Sinatra supported John F. Kennedy in 1960.
The reason that I liked this passage is that it highlights a power struggle. Nixon and some of his aides are seriously thinking about dropping Spiro Agnew as Vice-President and replacing him with John Connally. Where would Agnew go if that happened? Nixon and his advisors envisioned a wide-range of possibilities, from Agnew becoming the head of a TV network, to Agnew become a Supreme Court justice (imagine that!).
But dropping Agnew from the ticket would not be easy, for Agnew had his own clout. Agnew was supported by major donors, such as Frank Sinatra and the Manhattan 12. I enjoy reading about powerful people running into roadblocks!
4. John Connally was a Democrat, yet Nixon was thinking of making Connally the Vice-President. According to Nixon advisor John Ehrlichman and author Robert Sam Anson, Nixon was seriously contemplating developing a new political party, which would attract the center and the right and would eventually replace the Republican Party (pages 209-210). It's amazing to me that Nixon was actually thinking about this. It's not exactly a mainstream idea!
What was the outcome of Nixon's desire to replace Agnew with Connally? Essentially, Connally did not want to be Vice-President. Connally was drawn to the power that was in the Presidency, and he would eventually run for President. But he did not feel that the Vice-Presidency was that glamorous of a position. Plus, he wanted to focus on making money. Nixon kept Agnew on the ticket, but, even after winning the 1972 election, Nixon was contemplating dropping Agnew as Vice-President.
5. On pages 237-238, there is a discussion about the Vice-Presidential residence. I saw the Vice-Presidential residence when I went to Washington, D.C. as a child. It surprised me to learn in reading Witcover that the Vice-Presidential residence is rather new. Spiro Agnew did not live in a special home for the Vice-President, but he had an apartment. Nixon was thinking of getting him a special residence but did not get around to it. The Vice-Presidential residence came to be when Nelson Rockefeller was Gerald Ford's Vice-President. Rockefeller was rich, and he had a mansion in Washington, D.C. Rockefeller donated it to the government, and it became the official residence for the Vice-President.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Very Strange Bedfellows 4
For my blog post today on Jules Witcover's Very Strange Bedfellows: The Short and Unhappy Marriage of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, I'll comment on three passages.
1. On page 147, we read: "It wasn't so much that Nixon was down on Agnew, John Sears said later, as that he was up on Connally. At the same time, he said, Nixon's lack of self-confidence, and his consequent self-loathing, led him to tear down others. 'If you were out of his presence and there were any way to pick you apart, he'd do it,' Sears said. 'That way he didn't feel so badly about himself. Of all the people who hated Nixon, Nixon had the lowest opinion of himself [of] anybody. It was always, 'Everybody's against me.''"
The part about Connally and Agnew relates to a key plot-line in this book: President Richard Nixon was seriously contemplating replacing Vice-President Spiro Agnew with Democrat John Connally----who had been a governor of Texas (actually, he was the man who sat in front of John F. Kennedy when Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas) and was later appointed by Nixon to be Secretary of the Treasury. Agnew was making a lot of blunders, as when he said in Africa that the African leaders were so much better than the African-American leaders in the United States (which Nixon agreed with, but he didn't think that Agnew should have said that). Meanwhile, Nixon liked Connally because Connally stroked Nixon's ego (as when Connally compared Nixon to Lincoln), was tough, was better Presidential material in Nixon's eyes than Agnew, and offered what Nixon considered to be good advice (as when Connally said that Nixon needs to stop being stiff and become more passionate in public, which probably resonated with Nixon's fighting spirit). That Nixon thought the world of Connally is evident in Monica Crowley's Nixon Off the Record, for Nixon even during the 1990's was quoting Connally in his conversations with Monica.
Nixon's insecurity comes up a few times in Witcover's book. According to Witcover, Nixon was drawn to strong men like Agnew and Connally because of his own sense of inadequacy. Yet, Nixon didn't like to be upstaged, and that was one of his problems with Agnew. When Agnew in a meeting was advising Nixon to be tough on attacking Cambodia----when Nixon was advocating a more moderate policy than Agnew was----Nixon did not like for Agnew to appear tougher than Nixon before other people. Connally was tough, and yet he also seemed to be more of a team-player.
The passage on page 147 inspired me to ask: "Can a person truly hate himself?" Christians debate this. Some say that Jesus' statement that we should love our neighbors as we love ourselves encourages self-love, in a time when people have difficulty loving themselves. Others counter that Jesus was taking for granted that people love themselves----that even those with self-pity or low self-confidence wish the best for themselves. I think that Nixon loved himself in the sense that he desired his own advancement, but I also believe that Nixon was disappointed in himself, seeing himself as limited in areas.
2. On page 144, we read: "Around this time, the Nixon White House launched new revenue-sharing proposals with the governors, as part of a government reorganization. Agnew had been led to believe he would be importantly involved. However, under the label 'the New American Revolution,' the vice-president found himself relegated to the job of salesman of the stump while [George] Schultz, as head of the newly reorganized Office of Management and Budget, and [John] Ehrlichman, as overseer of all domestic affairs, became the policy heavies. Agnew felt that as a former county executive and governor, he was well-qualified to be in the middle of things rather than simply a huckster for this new 'revolution.'"
Witcover talks about Agnew's attempt to cultivate a role for himself as Vice-President. It's a problem that many Vice-Presidents throughout history have had, including Richard Nixon when he was Dwight Eisenhower's Vice-President. Agnew threw himself with gusto into the role of being the President of the Senate, which impressed some of the Senators there. And Agnew also was a popular speaker, as he attacked liberal elites. Yet, Agnew wanted more than that. He desired more influence on policy and more administrative responsibilities. Perhaps he thought that anyone could preside over the Senate or go across the country delivering a Pat Buchanan-written speech with passion, but that one was truly valued when his opinions on policy were accepted, or when he was entrusted with leading a project.
Can I identify with this? Right now, I'd be happy to have a job that makes me some money. But suppose I already had economic security. In that case, would I desire something more, such as respect?
On the issue of revenue-sharing, the passage on page 144 calls to my mind an earlier part of Witcover's book, which said that Agnew actually disagreed with Nixon on welfare-reform. Agnew wanted a single national policy, whereas Nixon was for the states developing their own policy. Could this have been one factor behind Agnew's exclusion from playing an administrative or policy-laden role in the so-called new American revolution? I doubt it was the only factor, for Nixon does appear to have been rather clannish in how he ran the White House, trusting only an inner-circle. But it could have been one factor.
3. On page 169, Witcover quotes Nixon as saying: "That's the thing. [Agnew] went to China, he's been to Korea, you know, he's been to all these places....Well, that's the danger. A little bit of knowledge and you become an expert. You go to Taiwan once, and 'I know about the China thing. I know Chiang Kai-shek, I know more than they even think they know.' But Agnew doesn't see the point there...You know, Henry, the thing about the Agnew thing that irritates me is...we handled this Chinese thing with extreme subtlety and skill and got good credit for it, and [referring to the press] now these sons of bitches will jump on the Agnew thing."
The context of this passage is Agnew's public questioning of a policy of U.S. normalization of relations with Communist China, right when Nixon was supporting this policy. Agnew was very pro-Taiwan, and his anti-Communism led him to be a fierce critic of Communist China. But Nixon thought that Agnew had tunnel-vision and was not sensitive to certain nuances in the situation, such as the impact that U.S. normalization with Communist China would have on the Soviet Union, which had differences with Communist China. Again, in Nixon's eyes, Agnew was not being a very good team player.
The issue of Agnew being one of the more conservative members of the Nixon Administration comes up more than once in this book. Agnew does not always voice his disagreements publicly, however, for he often sent memos criticizing a person or a policy within the Nixon Administration as too liberal. Agnew was probably seen as somewhat of a pain within the Administration, and definitely as a loose-cannon when he said something inappropriate in public, even going so far as to disagree publicly with Nixon's policy.
The part about Agnew thinking that he's an expert stood out to me because it made me think about how some people think that they're experts on something, just because they've read a few books. I am guilty of this as well! I read a couple of books on foreign policy, and I suddenly see myself as some expert! But I'm not an expert. Far from it. There is much more to read. Heck, becoming an expert may entail not just reading, but experiencing certain people, places, and situations. I'm not an expert on much, but I'm learning. And even experts can learn more than they currently know, which means that we're all learning, even if some are more advanced than others.
1. On page 147, we read: "It wasn't so much that Nixon was down on Agnew, John Sears said later, as that he was up on Connally. At the same time, he said, Nixon's lack of self-confidence, and his consequent self-loathing, led him to tear down others. 'If you were out of his presence and there were any way to pick you apart, he'd do it,' Sears said. 'That way he didn't feel so badly about himself. Of all the people who hated Nixon, Nixon had the lowest opinion of himself [of] anybody. It was always, 'Everybody's against me.''"
The part about Connally and Agnew relates to a key plot-line in this book: President Richard Nixon was seriously contemplating replacing Vice-President Spiro Agnew with Democrat John Connally----who had been a governor of Texas (actually, he was the man who sat in front of John F. Kennedy when Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas) and was later appointed by Nixon to be Secretary of the Treasury. Agnew was making a lot of blunders, as when he said in Africa that the African leaders were so much better than the African-American leaders in the United States (which Nixon agreed with, but he didn't think that Agnew should have said that). Meanwhile, Nixon liked Connally because Connally stroked Nixon's ego (as when Connally compared Nixon to Lincoln), was tough, was better Presidential material in Nixon's eyes than Agnew, and offered what Nixon considered to be good advice (as when Connally said that Nixon needs to stop being stiff and become more passionate in public, which probably resonated with Nixon's fighting spirit). That Nixon thought the world of Connally is evident in Monica Crowley's Nixon Off the Record, for Nixon even during the 1990's was quoting Connally in his conversations with Monica.
Nixon's insecurity comes up a few times in Witcover's book. According to Witcover, Nixon was drawn to strong men like Agnew and Connally because of his own sense of inadequacy. Yet, Nixon didn't like to be upstaged, and that was one of his problems with Agnew. When Agnew in a meeting was advising Nixon to be tough on attacking Cambodia----when Nixon was advocating a more moderate policy than Agnew was----Nixon did not like for Agnew to appear tougher than Nixon before other people. Connally was tough, and yet he also seemed to be more of a team-player.
The passage on page 147 inspired me to ask: "Can a person truly hate himself?" Christians debate this. Some say that Jesus' statement that we should love our neighbors as we love ourselves encourages self-love, in a time when people have difficulty loving themselves. Others counter that Jesus was taking for granted that people love themselves----that even those with self-pity or low self-confidence wish the best for themselves. I think that Nixon loved himself in the sense that he desired his own advancement, but I also believe that Nixon was disappointed in himself, seeing himself as limited in areas.
2. On page 144, we read: "Around this time, the Nixon White House launched new revenue-sharing proposals with the governors, as part of a government reorganization. Agnew had been led to believe he would be importantly involved. However, under the label 'the New American Revolution,' the vice-president found himself relegated to the job of salesman of the stump while [George] Schultz, as head of the newly reorganized Office of Management and Budget, and [John] Ehrlichman, as overseer of all domestic affairs, became the policy heavies. Agnew felt that as a former county executive and governor, he was well-qualified to be in the middle of things rather than simply a huckster for this new 'revolution.'"
Witcover talks about Agnew's attempt to cultivate a role for himself as Vice-President. It's a problem that many Vice-Presidents throughout history have had, including Richard Nixon when he was Dwight Eisenhower's Vice-President. Agnew threw himself with gusto into the role of being the President of the Senate, which impressed some of the Senators there. And Agnew also was a popular speaker, as he attacked liberal elites. Yet, Agnew wanted more than that. He desired more influence on policy and more administrative responsibilities. Perhaps he thought that anyone could preside over the Senate or go across the country delivering a Pat Buchanan-written speech with passion, but that one was truly valued when his opinions on policy were accepted, or when he was entrusted with leading a project.
Can I identify with this? Right now, I'd be happy to have a job that makes me some money. But suppose I already had economic security. In that case, would I desire something more, such as respect?
On the issue of revenue-sharing, the passage on page 144 calls to my mind an earlier part of Witcover's book, which said that Agnew actually disagreed with Nixon on welfare-reform. Agnew wanted a single national policy, whereas Nixon was for the states developing their own policy. Could this have been one factor behind Agnew's exclusion from playing an administrative or policy-laden role in the so-called new American revolution? I doubt it was the only factor, for Nixon does appear to have been rather clannish in how he ran the White House, trusting only an inner-circle. But it could have been one factor.
3. On page 169, Witcover quotes Nixon as saying: "That's the thing. [Agnew] went to China, he's been to Korea, you know, he's been to all these places....Well, that's the danger. A little bit of knowledge and you become an expert. You go to Taiwan once, and 'I know about the China thing. I know Chiang Kai-shek, I know more than they even think they know.' But Agnew doesn't see the point there...You know, Henry, the thing about the Agnew thing that irritates me is...we handled this Chinese thing with extreme subtlety and skill and got good credit for it, and [referring to the press] now these sons of bitches will jump on the Agnew thing."
The context of this passage is Agnew's public questioning of a policy of U.S. normalization of relations with Communist China, right when Nixon was supporting this policy. Agnew was very pro-Taiwan, and his anti-Communism led him to be a fierce critic of Communist China. But Nixon thought that Agnew had tunnel-vision and was not sensitive to certain nuances in the situation, such as the impact that U.S. normalization with Communist China would have on the Soviet Union, which had differences with Communist China. Again, in Nixon's eyes, Agnew was not being a very good team player.
The issue of Agnew being one of the more conservative members of the Nixon Administration comes up more than once in this book. Agnew does not always voice his disagreements publicly, however, for he often sent memos criticizing a person or a policy within the Nixon Administration as too liberal. Agnew was probably seen as somewhat of a pain within the Administration, and definitely as a loose-cannon when he said something inappropriate in public, even going so far as to disagree publicly with Nixon's policy.
The part about Agnew thinking that he's an expert stood out to me because it made me think about how some people think that they're experts on something, just because they've read a few books. I am guilty of this as well! I read a couple of books on foreign policy, and I suddenly see myself as some expert! But I'm not an expert. Far from it. There is much more to read. Heck, becoming an expert may entail not just reading, but experiencing certain people, places, and situations. I'm not an expert on much, but I'm learning. And even experts can learn more than they currently know, which means that we're all learning, even if some are more advanced than others.
Friday, May 10, 2013
Very Strange Bedfellows 3
For today's write-up on Very Strange Bedfellows: The Short and Unhappy Marriage of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew,
I'll use as my starting-point something that Jules Witcover says on
page 118. The context of the passage is the 1970 race for U.S. Senate
in the state of New York. At least three people were running. The
first was Republican Charlie Goodell, who had a fairly conservative
record in the U.S. House but disappointed Richard Nixon by advocating an
early withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam, whereas Nixon
supported "slower disengagement through a buildup of South Vietnamese
forces" (page 117). The second was Democrat Richard Ottinger, who
opposed the Vietnam War. And the third was Conservative Party
challenger James Buckley, the brother of conservative icon William F.
Buckley, Jr. Vice-President Spiro Agnew was a vociferous critic of
Goodell, preferring Buckley instead. And, to my surprise, Buckley won
the race! The wikipedia article about him
states: "To date he has been the only candidate of his party, and the
last third party registrant, to be successfully nominated and elected to
the U.S. Congress." (Wikipedia in a footnote explains the cases of
Bernie Sanders, Joe Lieberman, and others.)
But onto what Witcover says on page 118:
"Agnew had attacked the recently released report of the Scranton Commission on campus unrest, calling it in his trademark fashion 'pablum for permissiveness.' Goodell responded: 'Mr. Agnew has long been saying that it is the duty of men in public office to speak out against violence in our universities. That is precisely what this report does----only the report, unlike the vice president, speaks in balanced and moderate language.' At the same time, Goodell was careful not to separate himself from the leader of his party. 'In no conceivable sense is it [the report] scapegoating the president for a problem which, as we all know, has long antedated his accession to office,' he said, and Nixon was 'far ahead of Vice President Agnew in exercising constructive leadership on the issue.'"
I've never read the Scranton Commission's report on campus unrest. From what the wikipedia article about it says, it did appear to blame the campus unrest on escalation of the Vietnam War, including Nixon's invasion of Cambodia. Consequently, I can see why Agnew had a problem with the report. At the same time, I seriously doubt that it was supporting campus unrest, and, as a study, it probably was rather measured. But the quotation of Goodell stood out to me because I've long wondered about the fairness of demonizations. The right demonizes the left, and the left demonizes the right; both caricature each other. But perhaps people from both sides, in their own way, are concerned about many of the same problems and how to address them. And yet, whatever their motives may be, some policies work better than other policies.
I also thought about an article that I read: Mike Adams' "Letters to a Young Progressive". Adams essentially narrates that he was a secular progressive in college, but he became more religious and adopted conservative positions on certain issues when he was in the real world. This is somewhat like how Agnew characterized campus radicals: not knowing much about nuance and how the real world works. But, in my opinion, exposure to the real world can make a person into a liberal, not just a conservative. In the same way that there may be liberal solutions that collapse in the face of real life, there are plenty of examples in which conservative policies have had real world destructive consequences: people losing their homes or even their lives due to American military adventurism, people being forced to struggle even more due to the government cutting the programs that they need, etc.
But onto what Witcover says on page 118:
"Agnew had attacked the recently released report of the Scranton Commission on campus unrest, calling it in his trademark fashion 'pablum for permissiveness.' Goodell responded: 'Mr. Agnew has long been saying that it is the duty of men in public office to speak out against violence in our universities. That is precisely what this report does----only the report, unlike the vice president, speaks in balanced and moderate language.' At the same time, Goodell was careful not to separate himself from the leader of his party. 'In no conceivable sense is it [the report] scapegoating the president for a problem which, as we all know, has long antedated his accession to office,' he said, and Nixon was 'far ahead of Vice President Agnew in exercising constructive leadership on the issue.'"
I've never read the Scranton Commission's report on campus unrest. From what the wikipedia article about it says, it did appear to blame the campus unrest on escalation of the Vietnam War, including Nixon's invasion of Cambodia. Consequently, I can see why Agnew had a problem with the report. At the same time, I seriously doubt that it was supporting campus unrest, and, as a study, it probably was rather measured. But the quotation of Goodell stood out to me because I've long wondered about the fairness of demonizations. The right demonizes the left, and the left demonizes the right; both caricature each other. But perhaps people from both sides, in their own way, are concerned about many of the same problems and how to address them. And yet, whatever their motives may be, some policies work better than other policies.
I also thought about an article that I read: Mike Adams' "Letters to a Young Progressive". Adams essentially narrates that he was a secular progressive in college, but he became more religious and adopted conservative positions on certain issues when he was in the real world. This is somewhat like how Agnew characterized campus radicals: not knowing much about nuance and how the real world works. But, in my opinion, exposure to the real world can make a person into a liberal, not just a conservative. In the same way that there may be liberal solutions that collapse in the face of real life, there are plenty of examples in which conservative policies have had real world destructive consequences: people losing their homes or even their lives due to American military adventurism, people being forced to struggle even more due to the government cutting the programs that they need, etc.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Very Strange Bedfellows 2
For my write-up today on Jules Witcover's Very Strange Bedfellows: The Short and Unhappy Marriage of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, I'll use as my starting-point Witcover's quotation of Spiro Agnew on page 75:
"Truth to [young liberal protesters on college campuses] is 'revealed' rather than logically proved, and the principal infatuations of today revolve around the social sciences, those subjects which can accommodate any opinion and about which the most reckless conjecture cannot be discredited."
I sometimes feel this way. Whenever biblical scholars liken themselves to brain surgeons----as when they criticize people who think that they can read the Bible without the guidance of biblical scholarship, when these same people wouldn't try to perform brain surgery on their own but would consult experts----I'm somewhat skeptical. I just have a hard time putting biblical scholarship into the same category as brain surgery, since biblical scholarship seems to me to be rather speculative in areas. I've wondered at times if biblical scholarship and the humanities in general are sometimes like what Agnew says about the social sciences----that they can accommodate all sorts of different opinions, and they have their share of reckless conjectures.
There is a strong part of me that sees sciences such as biology, chemistry, and physics as objective, while regarding the humanities are more subjective. A professor of mine once commented that I had a bias that regarded the physical sciences as more stable than the humanities, but that my bias was incorrect, for the physical sciences change quite a bit. He may be right on that.
Agnew's comment also made me think about Kant, postmodernism, and deconstruction. I've long thought to myself: What is the point of students learning about these things in college? So there are intellectuals who doubt that there is objective truth. How do students benefit from learning about this sort of perspective?
I think about an experience that I had in college. A friend of mine was pre-med. He was on a bus with his debate-team coach, who was a postmodernist, and she was trying to justify slavery from a post-modern perspective. He contrasted that with what his biology professor did when my friend turned out to be right while the biology professor turned out to be wrong: the biology professor admitted his error! My friend gained a fresh respect for the physical sciences, as opposed to the humanities.
I can guess about how some of my acquaintances who study the humanities may respond. They might say that the humanities have a system of peer-review, and that keeps out crazy perspectives. They may also suggest that I must not know much about the humanities, to question that they are real sciences. Well, let me say this: I acknowledge that there is real science that goes on within the humanities. There are ideas that accord with the facts and that come out of a rigorous methodology of seeking truth. Facts are facts. Facts accord with some ideas better than others. But there have been plenty of times when I have read articles or books on biblical studies and I've thought to myself: "That sounds pretty speculative to me!" These books or articles may rest on facts, on some level, but there's a degree of speculative interpretation going on there, as well.
I'll stop blathering right here! I guess that, if I have a policy, it's to listen to what people are arguing. Even if the humanities may strike me as rather speculative at times, there may be times when they are getting at truth.
NOTE: I find James McGrath's thoughts here to be helpful. I actually wrote this post before I read McGrath's post.
"Truth to [young liberal protesters on college campuses] is 'revealed' rather than logically proved, and the principal infatuations of today revolve around the social sciences, those subjects which can accommodate any opinion and about which the most reckless conjecture cannot be discredited."
I sometimes feel this way. Whenever biblical scholars liken themselves to brain surgeons----as when they criticize people who think that they can read the Bible without the guidance of biblical scholarship, when these same people wouldn't try to perform brain surgery on their own but would consult experts----I'm somewhat skeptical. I just have a hard time putting biblical scholarship into the same category as brain surgery, since biblical scholarship seems to me to be rather speculative in areas. I've wondered at times if biblical scholarship and the humanities in general are sometimes like what Agnew says about the social sciences----that they can accommodate all sorts of different opinions, and they have their share of reckless conjectures.
There is a strong part of me that sees sciences such as biology, chemistry, and physics as objective, while regarding the humanities are more subjective. A professor of mine once commented that I had a bias that regarded the physical sciences as more stable than the humanities, but that my bias was incorrect, for the physical sciences change quite a bit. He may be right on that.
Agnew's comment also made me think about Kant, postmodernism, and deconstruction. I've long thought to myself: What is the point of students learning about these things in college? So there are intellectuals who doubt that there is objective truth. How do students benefit from learning about this sort of perspective?
I think about an experience that I had in college. A friend of mine was pre-med. He was on a bus with his debate-team coach, who was a postmodernist, and she was trying to justify slavery from a post-modern perspective. He contrasted that with what his biology professor did when my friend turned out to be right while the biology professor turned out to be wrong: the biology professor admitted his error! My friend gained a fresh respect for the physical sciences, as opposed to the humanities.
I can guess about how some of my acquaintances who study the humanities may respond. They might say that the humanities have a system of peer-review, and that keeps out crazy perspectives. They may also suggest that I must not know much about the humanities, to question that they are real sciences. Well, let me say this: I acknowledge that there is real science that goes on within the humanities. There are ideas that accord with the facts and that come out of a rigorous methodology of seeking truth. Facts are facts. Facts accord with some ideas better than others. But there have been plenty of times when I have read articles or books on biblical studies and I've thought to myself: "That sounds pretty speculative to me!" These books or articles may rest on facts, on some level, but there's a degree of speculative interpretation going on there, as well.
I'll stop blathering right here! I guess that, if I have a policy, it's to listen to what people are arguing. Even if the humanities may strike me as rather speculative at times, there may be times when they are getting at truth.
NOTE: I find James McGrath's thoughts here to be helpful. I actually wrote this post before I read McGrath's post.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Very Strange Bedfellows 1
I started Jules Witcover's 2007 book, Very Strange Bedfellows: The Short and Unhappy Marriage of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew. I'll use as my starting-point something that Witcover says on page 37. The setting is the 1968 Presidential election.
"At the same time, the Nixon strategists decided it was also imperative to shore up Agnew's centrist credentials in the eyes of the rest of the electorate. For this reason, on his first campaign swing he was sent to the Midwest, where he spoke to the annual Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention in Detroit and addressed not the Vietnam War but social justice at home.
"'You know how strongly I feel about the absolute necessity for respect of law,' he told the predominantly white audience, 'but that's not the whole answer. With law and order must come justice and equal opportunity. Law and order must mean to all of our people the protection of the innocent----not, to some people, the cracking of black skulls.' In words that almost sounded as if he were lecturing himself for his outburst against the Baltimore black leaders, Agnew said: 'In our frailty and human selfishness, we have too often shut our minds and our consciences to our black countrymen. We need to respond to conscience rather than react to violence. We must aggressively move for progress----not out of fear of reprisal, but out of certain faith that it is right.'"
Spiro Agnew was a Republican Governor of Maryland, who initially supported the liberal Nelson Rockefeller for the 1968 Republican nomination for President, only later to support Nixon. Agnew had won the race for governor against a Democratic opponent who was an ardent segregationist, and Agnew had a fairly progressive record on racial equality. As a lawyer, he won "strong contracts for 500 black fishermen" (page 32). Later, he was in favor of a ban on housing discrimination. (I talk about Agnew's record on civil rights in my post here, as I write about Dean Kotlowski's Nixon's Civil Rights.) Yet, according to Witcover, Agnew's record as a moderate was "disputed by liberal Democrats" (page 33).
Nixon chose Agnew to be his running mate for a variety of reasons. First, Nixon liked Agnew's tough stance on unrest in the cities. Witcover in the passage that I quoted above referred to Agnew's outburst against African-American leaders from Baltimore. What Witcover has in mind there is the time when Governor Agnew chewed out moderate African-American leaders for failing to stand up assertively against the riots in Baltimore. Nixon saw Agnew as strong in the field of domestic policy. Second, Nixon viewed Agnew as somewhat of a moderate. And yet, third, Nixon hoped that Agnew would keep Presidential candidate George Wallace of Alabama from getting too many votes, since Agnew was from a southern state (albeit not one in the Deep South), Maryland. And, fourth, Nixon was drawn to Agnew's confidence. According to Witcover, Nixon was rather insecure and thus was drawn to confident men, which Agnew was, even though Agnew, like Nixon, was not the most social guy in the world. At the same time, Nixon did not want a running mate who would upstage him. This paradox would carry over into Nixon's Administration, as Nixon often admired Agnew's attack-dog rhetoric, which gained Agnew fame and support, while also wanting to make sure that Agnew knew that his job was to promote the President.
Agnew in the speech that Witcover quotes makes a reference to cracking black skulls. Of course, Agnew's point is that law and order is not about that! Yet, Agnew did not make his point very delicately. According to Witcover, Agnew often had this sort of problem. Agnew would toss around offensive racial epithets, such as "Polack" and "fat Jap". He would manage to offend women. Agnew had his assets, but also his liabilities when it came to the ticket.
In Witcover's narrative, some of the Nixon people did not consider Agnew to be a particularly good speaker, which Witcover deems to be ironic, since that would be Agnew's niche as Vice-President. And yet, Witcover narrates that, in a sense, during the 1968 campaign, Agnew's speeches were significant. Essentially, Agnew was trying to out-Wallace Wallace, particularly in his condemnation of student protesters. Agnew in Milwaukee said that student protesters were "spoiled brats who never have had a good spanking", and that they "take their tactics from Gandhi and money from Daddy." Witcover says: "Wallace himself might have admired such phrases, which were not unlike his own."
Agnew in 1968 was widely seen as right-wing, and his rhetoric largely leaned in that direction. Yet, according to Witcover, there was a desire on the part of some of Nixon's strategists to remind people that Agnew was a moderate. Thus, Agnew's speech on social justice before the VFW at Detroit! In my opinion, Agnew delivered his speech there----before white veterans-----to give the impression that he was authentically concerned about social justice. Had he given that speech before the NAACP or the Urban League, or in Harlem, he would probably have been accused of pandering. But he gave the speech in a setting where (as far as I know) such speeches ordinarily were not given.
"At the same time, the Nixon strategists decided it was also imperative to shore up Agnew's centrist credentials in the eyes of the rest of the electorate. For this reason, on his first campaign swing he was sent to the Midwest, where he spoke to the annual Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention in Detroit and addressed not the Vietnam War but social justice at home.
"'You know how strongly I feel about the absolute necessity for respect of law,' he told the predominantly white audience, 'but that's not the whole answer. With law and order must come justice and equal opportunity. Law and order must mean to all of our people the protection of the innocent----not, to some people, the cracking of black skulls.' In words that almost sounded as if he were lecturing himself for his outburst against the Baltimore black leaders, Agnew said: 'In our frailty and human selfishness, we have too often shut our minds and our consciences to our black countrymen. We need to respond to conscience rather than react to violence. We must aggressively move for progress----not out of fear of reprisal, but out of certain faith that it is right.'"
Spiro Agnew was a Republican Governor of Maryland, who initially supported the liberal Nelson Rockefeller for the 1968 Republican nomination for President, only later to support Nixon. Agnew had won the race for governor against a Democratic opponent who was an ardent segregationist, and Agnew had a fairly progressive record on racial equality. As a lawyer, he won "strong contracts for 500 black fishermen" (page 32). Later, he was in favor of a ban on housing discrimination. (I talk about Agnew's record on civil rights in my post here, as I write about Dean Kotlowski's Nixon's Civil Rights.) Yet, according to Witcover, Agnew's record as a moderate was "disputed by liberal Democrats" (page 33).
Nixon chose Agnew to be his running mate for a variety of reasons. First, Nixon liked Agnew's tough stance on unrest in the cities. Witcover in the passage that I quoted above referred to Agnew's outburst against African-American leaders from Baltimore. What Witcover has in mind there is the time when Governor Agnew chewed out moderate African-American leaders for failing to stand up assertively against the riots in Baltimore. Nixon saw Agnew as strong in the field of domestic policy. Second, Nixon viewed Agnew as somewhat of a moderate. And yet, third, Nixon hoped that Agnew would keep Presidential candidate George Wallace of Alabama from getting too many votes, since Agnew was from a southern state (albeit not one in the Deep South), Maryland. And, fourth, Nixon was drawn to Agnew's confidence. According to Witcover, Nixon was rather insecure and thus was drawn to confident men, which Agnew was, even though Agnew, like Nixon, was not the most social guy in the world. At the same time, Nixon did not want a running mate who would upstage him. This paradox would carry over into Nixon's Administration, as Nixon often admired Agnew's attack-dog rhetoric, which gained Agnew fame and support, while also wanting to make sure that Agnew knew that his job was to promote the President.
Agnew in the speech that Witcover quotes makes a reference to cracking black skulls. Of course, Agnew's point is that law and order is not about that! Yet, Agnew did not make his point very delicately. According to Witcover, Agnew often had this sort of problem. Agnew would toss around offensive racial epithets, such as "Polack" and "fat Jap". He would manage to offend women. Agnew had his assets, but also his liabilities when it came to the ticket.
In Witcover's narrative, some of the Nixon people did not consider Agnew to be a particularly good speaker, which Witcover deems to be ironic, since that would be Agnew's niche as Vice-President. And yet, Witcover narrates that, in a sense, during the 1968 campaign, Agnew's speeches were significant. Essentially, Agnew was trying to out-Wallace Wallace, particularly in his condemnation of student protesters. Agnew in Milwaukee said that student protesters were "spoiled brats who never have had a good spanking", and that they "take their tactics from Gandhi and money from Daddy." Witcover says: "Wallace himself might have admired such phrases, which were not unlike his own."
Agnew in 1968 was widely seen as right-wing, and his rhetoric largely leaned in that direction. Yet, according to Witcover, there was a desire on the part of some of Nixon's strategists to remind people that Agnew was a moderate. Thus, Agnew's speech on social justice before the VFW at Detroit! In my opinion, Agnew delivered his speech there----before white veterans-----to give the impression that he was authentically concerned about social justice. Had he given that speech before the NAACP or the Urban League, or in Harlem, he would probably have been accused of pandering. But he gave the speech in a setting where (as far as I know) such speeches ordinarily were not given.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)