The Ends of Power 1

I started H.R. Haldeman’s The Ends of Power, which Haldeman co-wrote with Joseph DiMona.  Haldeman was White House Chief of Staff to President Richard Nixon.

Why did I decide to read this book?  Well, Haldeman has somewhat fascinated me.  I suppose that he has ever since I read Eli Chesen’s President Nixon’s Psychiatric Profile, which noted Haldeman’s 1950′s style haircut, and also the fact that Haldeman was a devout Christian Scientist.  Moreover, I have long read and heard that Haldeman was rather intimidating, and I often wonder what is underneath people who put on a tough front.

So far, The Ends of Power gets into some of the intricacies of Watergate.  Reading this book is similar to my experience of reading volume 2 of Nixon’s memoirs, which talked a lot about Watergate.  This is not because Haldeman necessarily agrees with Nixon’s account: Haldeman agrees with Nixon in some areas, but disagrees with Nixon in others (i.e., what was discussed on the 18 and 1/2 minutes erased from the tape).  Rather, the two are similar because of their ambiguity.  Both of them, on some level, agree that the break-in at the Democratic Committee’s headquarters was a mistake, and Haldeman takes some responsibility for it, even though he says that neither he nor Nixon ordered it or even knew about it until after it occurred.  (UPDATE: Later in the book, however, Haldeman says that Nixon wanted information about DNC chair Lawrence O'Brien, and that this might have been an impetus for the break-in.) And yet, both Nixon and Haldeman say that they don’t have much of a problem with bugging because Democrats did that, too.  The initial reaction of Nixon and Haldeman, according to their accounts, was that the break-in was stupid, since what was at the DNC headquarters?  But they stop short of criticizing the mindset that was allegedly behind the break-in: the use of bugging to gather information on one’s political opponents.  I’m just speaking based on my reading of Haldeman so far.

Ambrose's Nixon: The Triumph of a Politician 4

I have five items for my blog post today on Stephen Ambrose's Nixon: The Triumph of a Politician, 1962-1972.  We're in July-December 1967.

1.  Richard Nixon liked to say "let me make it perfectly clear", and variations of that phrase.  Nixon said that he needed to be candid in order to dispel his reputation as someone who was devious.  On pages 121-122, Ambrose says the following about Nixon's statements that he would be candid, clear, or precise:

"Some of his oft-used statements preceding a statement included: 'to be perfectly candid,' 'speaking quite frankly,' 'putting it bluntly,' 'let me be quite precise,' and 'let me make it perfectly clear.'  In fact, in most cases, he was about to be the opposite.  For example, whenever he promised to be 'quite precise,' he would fly off into a generalization; whenever he promised to make things 'perfectly clear,' he always left them more opaque than ever."

That's funny!  And it's only one of several examples of a funny passage in Ambrose's book.  That's why Ambrose is such an enjoyable author to read.

Incidentally, other authors I've read have commented on Nixon's statements that he would be clear or candid.  Eli Chesen in President Nixon's Psychiatric Profile says that Nixon used that expression because of his own insecurity.  If Nixon were secure, Chesen contends, he would just assume that people would accept his remarks as candid!  The thing is, as Nixon said, there were a lot of people who didn't do that, for they regarded Nixon as rather devious.  Then there's John Bircher Gary Allen's Richard Nixon: The Man Behind the Mask.  Allen says that, whenever Nixon says he would be clear or candid, people should watch out!  They're about to be conned!

2.  On page 122, Ambrose talks about Nixon's extensive knowledge and how that helped him in his campaign:

"He was a masterful political speaker for two good reasons.  First, he just knew too much.  Talking to big-business men or to intellectuals, he could go on for hours without a single note, reeling off statistics on production, population growth, educational levels, and gross national products for nearly every nation in the world, or speculate on this or that personality in those countries, not on the basis of something he had read but on the basis of personal knowledge.  As to American politics, no one, not even the President, knew the players and the game more intimately than Nixon."

Ambrose's second reason for Nixon's effectiveness as a political speaker was that Nixon knew how to speak to the fears and concerns of the white middle class.  But I won't go into that topic right now.
Having read four of Nixon's books, I have to admit that Nixon comes across as very knowledgeable and intelligent.  But, in the course of reading books for my Year (or More) of Nixon, I've noticed something else that Ambrose discusses: that Nixon was not always consistent.  For example, Nixon during President Lyndon Johnson's Presidency was saying that the U.S. should escalate the war in Vietnam.  But when Johnson did that and sent more American troops, Nixon then said that Johnson was making a mistake, for the U.S. shouldn't make South Vietnam too dependent on American forces.

I'm all for flexibility, for new situations may call for changes in strategy.  Moreover, I don't think that all charges of flip-flopping within the political arena are particularly fair.  Bill Clinton was portrayed as a waffler by Republicans in 1992, but I thought that Clinton was simply expressing alternatives to the typical banal left-right polarity.  John Kerry was called a flip-flopper in 2004 for voting for funds for the Iraq War before voting against them, but Kerry explained to my satisfaction why he did that: it was because things were added to the appropriations after he voted for them that he did not like.  Mitt Romney's changes of position, however, turned me off.  They seemed to me to be frequent, and they made me wonder if he had any core, or a fairly firm stance about what the United States should so about such-and-such a situation, or even enough knowledge to arrive at such a stance.  I can understand why there were people who felt this way about Nixon.  And yet, Nixon could do a good job in communicating that he knew stuff.

3.  On page 120, Ambrose says the following about Nixon's views on Ronald Reagan, a conservative Republican who had just become Governor of California:

"When he saw lines like that, or heard Reagan lecture to the university people about their responsibilities, Nixon knew who his chief competitor was, whatever he told the press about Rockefeller or Romney."

This passage is good because it enhances the drama of Ambrose's narrative.  A serious political player is entering the arena who is of concern to Nixon!  Reagan's talk and action about order on college campuses (which Nixon also talked about) spoke to a lot of people.  And Reagan also had a Nixonian talent for saying something without being overly blunt.  When Reagan was asked if Johnson deserved blame for the loss of lives in Vietnam, Reagan replied that Johnson wasn't cold blooded or callous, but that as President Johnson would get credit for a victory, and so Johnson should also take responsibility for the consequences of his war policy.  Ambrose says Reagan's response here was "a Nixon-like reply that the master himself could not have topped" (page 120).

4.  Julie Nixon became engaged to David Eisenhower, who was Dwight Eisenhower's grandson.  On page 129, we read: "when Julie told her father, he had so little to say----he hardly looked up from the legal pad he was writing on----that she felt let down and went to her mother for consolation.  Pat spoke to her husband."  Nixon wrote Julie a note, which was slipped under her door.  The note said that probably no father thinks that anyone is good enough for his daughter, that Julie and David were lucky to have found each other, that Fina (the maid from Cuba) said Julie brings life to the home, and that Julie will bring life to her home wherever it might be.

It was a sweet note.  I don't think that Nixon disapproved of David, per se, for he got along well with David.  Ambrose says that Nixon and David spent hours talking about politics and baseball!  My guess is that Nixon was depressed when Julie came to tell him the news, or he was preoccupied within his own little world.

5.  Nixon's mother Hannah passed on in 1967, which means that she never got to actually see her son become President of the United States.  Hannah had read a newspaper columnist say that Nixon was through.  On page 128, Ambrose narrates:

"Nixon, at a loss for appropriate words, had said, 'Mother, don't give up.'  And the woman who had never known the meaning of the word quit, the mother who had given birth to, nurtured, and helped train one of the most remarkable personalities of her time, the saint (it was a word used to describe her by others long before her son used it) who had wiped up her oldest boy's tuberculosis spittle (and that of so many others) in a desperate attempt to give Harold Nixon his fair chance, denying herself meanwhile even the smallest luxury or comfort, the wife who had tamed and civilized Frank Nixon, had pulled herself up in bed.  She had looked intently into her son's eyes.  For her at least, one may suppose that time no longer existed, that it was not 1965 but 1915, or 1925, or '35 or '45 or '55.  Whatever the year, whatever the current crisis, her admonishment to her boy was the same.  'Richard,' she had said, 'don't you give up.  Don't let anybody tell you you are through.'"

Some may see Ambrose's narration here as sappy and over-the-top.  I think it's beautiful, and it moved me to tears.

RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon, Volume 1

I'm actually writing this post on February 26, 2013.  I've just returned from Indiana, where I was attending my sister's wedding and visiting with family.  The Internet connection was not that good where I was staying (most of the time) in Indiana, and so I decided to postpone my blogging to when I would return to my home in upstate New York.  Plus, I needed a bit of a break from blogging!  During my time in Indiana, I still did my reading for My Year (or More) of Nixon.  I read volume 1 of Richard Nixon's memoirs, which goes from Nixon's birth through his Presidency in 1971.  The copyright for the memoirs is 1978, which was four years after Richard Nixon resigned from office.  I read 300 pages during the car ride to Indiana----and it was a good book for car ride reading, on account of Nixon's clarity, pleasant conversational style, and stories.  Then, during the eight days that I was in Indiana, I followed my usual practice of reading 30 pages a day.  I finished the book on the car ride back to New York.

The book is 669 pages, and I don't think that I've ever covered the entirety of a book that long in one post.  I have a list of topics to cover, but I may not go through them all.  Rather, I'll make some points. Some of them will get into the nitty-gritty, whereas others will focus more on the forest rather than the trees.

1.  As in Six Crises, Nixon in his memoirs comes across as a basically decent person.  Nixon admires goodness in others and is fair-minded.  He empathizes with people, even political opponents and those he did not particularly get along with.  He is compassionate towards the disadvantaged.  He has had a long-standing love for peace and an admiration for pacifists (even though he admits that he's not a pacifist), and he has seen the horrors of war.  He recognizes mistakes that he has made in the past.  And yet, it was noteworthy to me that Nixon in volume 1 of his memoirs sometimes appeared to be rather shady, or he sought to justify activities within his administration that many considered shady, as opposed to flat-out denying that accusations had merit, as was the case in Six Crises.

For example, Nixon talks about his 1968 campaign for President, when President Lyndon Johnson was about to suspend his bombing for the Vietnam War.  Nixon was receiving inside information about Johnson's policies from Henry Kissinger, who (in some capacity) was advising Johnson at the time.  Nixon was all for suspending bombing, as long as North Vietnam met certain conditions, such as ceasing its aggression.  But what astounded me was that Nixon in his memoirs was quite up-front in narrating his concern about how Johnson's move would impact Nixon's campaign.  That just looked devious to me.  I mean, shouldn't a statesman be rooting for the President to succeed in bringing forth peace, rather than thinking about how a certain policy would affect his (the statesman's) political future?  Nixon often portrays himself as one who was concerned about the good of others rather than himself.  That's why his narration of how he handled LBJ's Vietnam policy in 1968 stood out to me like a sore thumb.

In some cases, Nixon's justifications for certain shady practices struck me as poor, even if they were understandable.  For example, Nixon says that he supported dirty tricks in campaigns because the Democrats themselves engaged in dirty tricks, and he wanted the Republicans to fight back.  That's understandable, but "they did it first" or "they do it too" (not that Nixon uses those exact words) sounds rather childish to me.  One justification that Nixon offered seemed to me to contradict another position that he holds.  Nixon, for example, expresses support for intelligence people stretching the law in order to fight domestic terrorists, such as the Black Panthers and the Weathermen, and he cautions that following the exact letter of the law is not always wise because the authors of the law could not have foreseen every circumstance that might come up.  That's a valid point.  And yet, Nixon emphasizes the value of appointing strict constructionists to the judiciary.  Perhaps Nixon's justifications that made most sense to me concerned his attempts to keep a lid on leaks.  Nixon talked about how leaks to the press about his foreign policy plans had the effect of disrupting those plans, since it's not prudent to let the people with whom one will be dealing to know everything one has in mind; moreover, according to Nixon, the Pentagon Papers contained some sensitive information, such as the names of sources of information to the U.S.  Good points.  It's ironic, though, that Nixon criticizes leaks, when elsewhere in his book he acknowledges that Kissinger was his source within the LBJ administration.  But it's still a fairly decent point.

2.  In reading the first volume of Nixon's memoirs, I thought about previous books that I had read about Nixon.  First, regarding Nixon's run for the U.S. House against Democratic incumbent Jerry Voorhis, Stephen Ambrose essentially argued that Nixon was unfair to say that Voorhis had the support of NC-PAC (a group that was believed to have been infiltrated by Communists) in 1946, for Voorhis had NC-PAC's support in 1944 but not in 1946, when Voorhis had a reputation for having anti-Communist beliefs on foreign policy (see here).  Nixon in his memoirs, however, says that the Los Angeles branch of NC-PAC indicated in 1946 its support for Voorhis, and Nixon said that this branch had a lot of Communists.  Nixon's issue was that Voorhis (in Nixon's eyes) was not sensitive to the problem of Communist infiltration.  Ambrose said that Nixon tended to misremember places, as when Nixon said that a fried-chicken lunch with Senator Joseph McCarthy and other officials occurred in Nixon's own office, when it actually took place in Senator Everett Dirksen's office (see here); on page 174 of the first volume of his memoirs, however, Nixon says that the fried chicken lunch occurred in Dirksen's office.

Recently, I've been reading psychological profiles of Nixon (one by Bruce Mazlish and another by Eli Chesen), which assert that Nixon was not open to pursuing in-depth self-examination.  In reading his memoirs, did I find Nixon to be one who speculated about how early events in his life shaped the sort of person that he became?  Occasionally.  Nixon said that his father was argumentative and that his father's fights with Nixon's brothers made Nixon want peace.  Nixon also stated that his mother's low-profile religiosity----which focused on doing good rather than wearing religion on one's sleeve----made him adverse to wearing his religion on his sleeve.  But I didn't see anything about Nixon's earlier experiences in life making him an insecure perfectionist who sought control, which was the picture I got from the psychological profiles that I read.  Nixon even mentioned the incident of him falling out of a buggy at a very young age, but he did not comment about how that shaped the way that he turned out.

3.  There were a lot of interesting discussions about public policy in volume 1 of Nixon's memoirs, ranging from such topics as the Vietnam War, to welfare, to civil rights.  (And I'm still scratching my head about Nixon's discussion of civil rights, for Nixon brags about how more schools became racially desegregated under his administration, while also making the bizarre argument that Brown vs. the Board of Education had no problem with segregated schools, just so long as they were equal, which was one reason that he opposed busing while supporting more federal support for education.)  For this item, however, I'd like to highlight something that stood out to me on page 640:

"The budget I submitted in January of 1971 was set to be balanced at full employment and run a deficit to help take up the slack when unemployment was high."

Nixon appeared to be walking a fine line.  Inflation was a problem during his administration, and he attributes that (at least in part) to the heavy government spending under the LBJ Presidency, as LBJ increased government spending for both the Vietnam War and also the Great Society, running a deficit in the process.  At the same time, Nixon acknowledges that unemployment was rather high under his Presidency, and Nixon seems to be aware that austerity (clamping down on spending) is not that good on the economy when unemployment is a problem.  Nixon does not mention Keynes in the first volume of his memoirs, but he may very well have had a Keynesian notion that the government needs to spend money to stimulate the economy.

Overall, on the issue of the Great Society, it seems to me from Nixon's memoirs that he was for the government spending money to alleviate poverty, but he did not care for how welfare split up families, and he wanted for there to be work requirements or job training for poor families who (under his proposal) would receive a stipend.  He also thought that George McGovern's proposal that every family of four receive $6,500 a year went way too far!

President Nixon's Psychiatric Profile 2

I finished Dr. Eli Chesen's President Nixon's Psychiatric Profile: A Psychodynamic-Genetic Interpretation.  I have three items.

1.  Chesen speculates that Nixon was especially susceptible to pneumonia in the summer of 1973 because he was about to meet with Senator Sam Ervin, who was investigating Watergate and who (according to Chesen) reminded Nixon of his opinionated, authoritarian father, Frank Nixon.

The relationship between Nixon's later life and his earlier life has been of interest to me, especially as I've read Stephen Ambrose's Nixon: The Education of a Politician and Bruce Mazlish's In Search of Nixon.  Or let me phrase the issue a bit differently by asking a question: Could Nixon ever outgrow the problems that he experienced in his earlier years?  According to the picture that Chesen presents, Nixon, even years after his father had died, when Nixon had a family of his own and was in a position of authority in his own right, could still be troubled by his issues with his father.  Bruce Mazlish talks about how Nixon in the 1950's did not care for the prospect of Dwight Eisenhower treating him like a little kid, but, when Nixon was President, he himself could be the father-figure.  Nixon was like a father-figure to his son-in-law, David Eisenhower.  And, whereas Nixon as Vice-President was the political attack-dog while President Dwight Eisenhower maintained an aura of dignity above the fray, Nixon as President tried to be the fair-minded one above the fray, while his Vice-President, Spiro Agnew, acted as the attack-dog.  But did Nixon truly arrive at a state of maturity in his years as President?  Somewhere in Nixon: The Education of a Politician, Stephen Ambrose argues in the negative.   When Nixon was Vice-President, Eisenhower thought that Nixon was immature and lacked administrative experience, and he contemplated replacing Nixon as Vice-President while giving Nixon a cabinet position so that he could attain administrative experience.  This did not happen, for Nixon remained Eisenhower's Vice-President.  But, even as President, Nixon was not that good of an administrator, as far as Ambrose is concerned!  One can move into maturer roles while still being dogged by one's past!

2.  Chesen has a chapter about the people with whom Nixon surrounds himself.  I was particularly intrigued by Chesen's discussion of H.R. Haldeman and Billy Graham.  H.R. Haldeman was Nixon's Chief-of-Staff.  Haldeman had a flat-top, years after the 1950's; he (like John Ehrlichman) was a disciplined Christian Scientist who did not drink or smoke, yet he crossed ethical boundaries; and he had a gruff demeanor, which enabled him to do the hard jobs that Nixon didn't want to do himself.  According to Chesen, Haldeman met Nixon's need for order.  But Nixon apparently didn't go for Haldeman's proposal to replace Nixon's long-time secretary, Rose Mary Woods, whom Chesen says was practically part of Nixon's family!

Chesen essentially portrays Billy Graham as insecure, as authoritarian, and as "grandiose and intoxicated by as well as addicted to power" (page 209).  I don't think that Chesen is saying that Graham runs things in an authoritarian fashion, but rather that Graham likes to get on his high horse and preach to people about how they should live their lives.  Chesen seems to base his impressions, at least in part, on Graham's sermons.  What need of Nixon does Graham meet, according to Chesen?  Essentially, Graham rubber-stamps Nixon's political agenda (particularly anti-Communism) with God's alleged stamp of approval, as well as promotes that agenda.

Chesen may be spot-on when it comes to the Billy Graham of the 1950's, who dogmatically shouted his political and religious convictions from the pulpit.  But, in my opinion, the later Billy Graham came across as humbler, as less right-wing (notwithstanding his support for a ballot measure against marriage equality), as gentler, as more reflective, and as more tolerant.  Still, I may read another book that Chesen has written: Religion May Be Hazardous to Your Health.

3.  Chesen asks (and this was in 1973) if we have anything to fear from President Nixon, with his psychiatric status as one who is obsessed with order yet has deeply seated aggression?  Chesen thinks that Nixon would thrive in solving an international crisis, for that would feed into his grandiosity, but Chesen doubts that Nixon would do as well in personal scandals, such as Watergate.  The danger, for Chesen, could come if the crisis were international in scope while also impacting Nixon on a more personal level.

Chesen makes clear that he is not being partisan politically.  The back flap of the book says that Chesen voted for Nixon in 1968 and for George McGovern in 1972, presenting Chesen as an independent.  Moreover, Chesen, like Mazlish, criticizes the American Psychiatric Association for circulating a questionnaire in which the majority of respondents questioned Republican Barry Goldwater's mental health.  Chesen thinks that the APA was irresponsible and inaccurate, in that case.  Chesen's point, however, is that mental health is relevant to the Presidency.  Mazlish makes a similar point.  That does not mean that those who seek psychological help are unfit to be President----as Mazlish notes, going into therapy is actually admirable because it shows courage and a desire to grow.  But, for Mazlish and Chesen, knowing how a President ticks is important because that could impact so many people.

President Nixon's Psychiatric Profile 1

I started Eli Chesen's 1973 book, President Nixon's Psychiatric Profile.  According to this wikipedia article, Dr. Chesen worked with David Frost in developing a strategy for Frost's interviews of Richard Nixon.

Chesen admits that his psychiatric analysis of Nixon is not based on any personal meetings that he has had with Nixon.  Rather, like Bruce Mazlish in In Search of Nixon, Chesen relies on such sources as biographies, Richard Nixon's Six Crises, and Nixon's public appearances.  Interestingly, one way that Chesen justifies his methodology is by appealing to something that Nixon himself said in Six Crises: that, if the Alger Hiss hearings had been televised, there wouldn't have been all of the controversy about Hiss' guilt, for people would have looked at Hiss' mannerisms and would have concluded that Hiss was guilty!

Chesen essentially presents Nixon as someone who is insecure and thus tries to maintain control.  That, according to Chesen, accounts for various features of Nixon's personality and activities: Nixon's obsession with detail, his self-discipline and his admiration of those who are self-disciplined, his behavior during Watergate, the way that he says that he wants to make something clear or to be candid (rather than just assuming that people will accept what he's saying as candid), etc.  What are the roots of Nixon's insecurity, according to Chesen?  Well, Chesen provides a fictional case-study of a man named Steve Cleansman, who grew up with a father who ran him down, and Cleansman went on to become an insecure perfectionist.  Chesen makes clear that Steve Cleansman is not entirely like Richard Nixon, but rather that the fictional case-study is a way for Chesen to illustrate categories and defense mechanisms that are relevant to Nixon's life.  And, to be honest, I don't get the impression from Chesen's book that Nixon was an insecure perfectionist because his father didn't think that he was good enough.

Nixon's parents were relevant, however, as far as Chesen is concerned.  Nixon's father was an authoritarian and was argumentative, and he would never let his sons develop self-esteem by beating him in an argument.  (According to Mazlish, Nixon responded to this by becoming talented with words.)  Nixon's mother was religious, and she was also the strong one of the family.  According to Chesen, the strength of Nixon's mother confused Nixon because men were the ones who were supposed to be strong, and Nixon's religious upbringing----coupled with his father's authoritarianism----instilled in Nixon a certain authoritarianism.  Nixon, according to Chesen, found a degree of comfort in the authority structure that was around him, and yet Nixon resented it, contributing to the aggressive impulses within him.  According to Chesen, the adult Nixon on some level admires Communism on account of its orderliness as a system, yet he is anti-Communist because he is projecting things onto Communism.

The time that Nixon's mother was away in Arizona caring for Richard's brother Harold (who had tuberculosis) also had an impact on Nixon, according to Chesen: at age 12 (and I should note that Mazlish on page 21 of In Search of Nixon seems to say that Nixon was older than 12 when this happened), Nixon was thrust into adulthood, and he had to perform tasks that women did (i.e., washing the dishes).  That, according to Chesen, could have made Nixon ashamed and influenced him to withdraw.  There are other factors that young Nixon experienced that could have contributed to his insecurity: the death of his brother Arthur, an accident in which Nixon fell out of a buggy when he was very young, and illnesses.

Like Mazlish, Chesen discusses Nixon's grandiosity.  Early in the book, on pages 12-13, Chesen says that the difference between Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon was that Eisenhower regarded himself as part of America, as was evident in Eisenhower's division of his loyalties between the White House and the golf course; Nixon, by contrast, regards the country as an extension of himself and takes himself way too seriously----even though Nixon says in Six Crises that he learned from Eisenhower not to take himself too seriously!

I should make a clarification: I doubt that Chesen is saying that events in Nixon's earlier life caused Nixon to turn out a certain way.  Chesen acknowledges in his story about Steve Cleansman that people who grow up in the same environment can turn out differently.  Perhaps Chesen believes that how people turn out is a combination of both nature and nurture----of temperament coupled with the experiences that people have.  Just to speculate (and this is my speculation, not Chesen's), Nixon may have already been a quiet boy who wanted order, but certain events amplified those characteristics.

I'd like to close this post by commenting on Nixon's religion.  Both Mazlish and Chesen discuss the role of religion in Nixon's childhood and his adult life, and they appear to regard Nixon as rather conservative religiously.  But, as I talk about here, as I draw from Stephen Ambrose's Nixon: The Education of a Politician and William Martin's With God on Our Side, Nixon during and after his young adulthood had quite liberal ideas about religion, indicating that Nixon was not afraid to question his rather fundamentalist upbringing.  That should somehow be factored into any discussion about the role of religion in Nixon's authoritarianism.  Still, notwithstanding Nixon's religious liberalism, elements of his religious upbringing may have contributed to his obsession with order: the sociology of his religious upbringing, his mother's insistence that God had a plan, etc.