The History Book Club discussion
PRESIDENTIAL SERIES
>
WE ARE OPEN - SPOTLIGHT - PRESIDENTIAL SERIES - ASK TIM
Betty wrote: "I am completely blown away by how much Nixon was able to get away with. How was it possible that Nixon had so to be able to get away with so many horrendous things? I mean, the Presidency of the US is not supposed to be a dictatorship! Are there things in place now to prevent secrecy and deception from our trusted leaders?"Betty, democracy is a struggle. No free republic in the history of Western civilization has lasted longer than 300 years -- and that was the Roman Empire. We want liberty *and* we want security. They are warring forces. But we cannot have one without the other. We are always in a tug of war; democracy loses ground when secrecy gains the upper hand.
Nixon and his inner circle usurped powers that under the Constitution are placed with Congress and the courts. But he truly believed that in times of war and crisis a President may behave more like a king. Others who first tasted power under Nixon held that belief: I give you Dick Cheney as Exhibit One.
After Watergate came the 1975 Senate hearings known as the Church Committee. They revealed, among many other things, illegal CIA and FBI and NSA spying against Americans, White House-approved assassination plots against foreign leaders like Fidel Castro, and the development of an "imperial presidency" during the cold war. Yes, reforms were instituted, such as Senate and House committees to oversee the CIA and American intelligence, and to restrict presidential abuses of the secret agencies of the government.
These reforms were severely challenged by President Bush and Vice President Cheney after 9/11. Massive spying on Americans, dragnet arrests (on occasion, secret imprisonment) of innocent people, and the return of the imperial presidency abetted by a supine Congress marked those years. But, as Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in 2006, "A state of war does not make a President a king." The secret prisons closed and the torture of prisoners stopped, and some (but not many) restrictions on U.S. Government spying on U.S. citizens were re-instituted.
And so the tug of war continues. In the end, it matters a great deal who the President is -- and whether the President will uphold the oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution.
Thanks, Tim. Kissinger's public persona is so different to the generations that were not old enough to remember the Nixon presidency. The years have glossed it over but, as you indicate, time will out.
Hi Tim - thanks taking the time to answer all these questions - this is great!At the end of chapter you talk about all the missing Air Force officers from the covert war with Laos. Reading that made me remember a time about 25 years ago when a Vietnam Vet sat next to my mother and I and talked about his war experiences. He talked about the covert war against countries bordering Vietnam. He described how the markings identifying the planes as US Air Force were removed (and I believe he said CIA officers were flying them). He also talked about the friends he lost during those missions and got quite emotional at the end. I honestly thought he was full crap - I thought the US would never do that. As I got older and read more I realized that he probably wasn't far from the truth.
Question: You mentioned how senior Air Force officers falsified these bombing records. Did the US government go as far as taking identification of the US Air Force planes so they could have some type of deniability? And with that said, for those men lost in this secret war, have we tried to find the remains of these men (like we have with Vietnam in recent years)?
Mod
For whatever reason, I remember my late mother saying that she did not think that Henry Kissinger was a nice man and that she felt that he had been involved in some rather dismal episodes in our country's history and she did not particularly like him. Funny the things that you sometimes remember. I imagine that you might have met Henry Kissinger or at the very least have your own impressions of him first hand, what are your thoughts in relationship to his scruples? I know you responded in question 50 but Kissinger has fascinated me as the person who whispered in everybody's ear.
Bentley wrote: " I remember my late mother saying that she did not think that Henry Kissinger was a nice man.... I imagine that you might have met Henry Kissinger or at the very least have your own impressions of him first hand, what are your thoughts in relationship to his scruples?"Bentley,my own mother and Kissinger were born in the same Bavarian town outside Nuremberg, 11 months apart; his father taught my uncle in high school. I used this connection to get Kissinger on the phone when I was a reporter at The New York Times. Never failed.
As to Kissinger's scruples, Greg Grandin's excellent (and admirably short) new book "Kissinger's Shadow" is first-rate. I will keep my own thoughts brief. Kissinger under Nixon was a brilliant tactician and utterly amoral. He was personally responsible for the meaningless Shanghai declaration, the sole diplomatic fruit of Nixon's trip to China; the so-called Strategic Arms Limitation accord (aka SALT), which actually increased the number of warheads in the global nuclear arsenal; and the "peace is at hand" endgame of his secret negotiations with North Vietnam, which led to victory for the enemy in the Vietnam War. Scruples? Kissinger had few, I'm sorry to say. But there is no gainsaying his intellect and his charm -- nor his covert and clandestine methods, which matched Nixon's, and ultimately damaged America's moral stature in the world.
Christopher wrote: "For those men lost in this secret war [in Laos and Cambodia], have we tried to find the remains of these men (like we have with Vietnam in recent years)?"Yes, we have, but some of the MIA from the covert operations of the Vietnam War remain missing, despite the best efforts to trace and recover their remains, sadly.
Mod
Isn't that an unbelievable connection with your own Mother and family. Thank you for the details. I will look into that book.
I have that book on my TBR pile, Bentley.Tim: I'm reading Bass' book, which also paints Kissinger and Nixon as full on realpolitik...even immoral on their stance during Pakistan-India war.
by
Gary J. Bass
Mod
I find this book fascinating, but also disturbing because of what it reveals about the the man who held the fate of our country in his hands.I am interested in the many references you found to Nixon using alcohol to get to sleep. He obviously abused alcohol.
Question:
Would you classify Nixon as an alcoholic?
That is, was he addicted to alcohol? Is his voice slurred on any of the tapes? Did he drink a lot during the day?
Tim wrote: "Andra asked: "In the wake of everything you've dug up on Nixon's presidency, do you think he did anything positive for this country?"Andra, he did, but more often than not against his own politic..."
Excellent answer as expected. Thank you.
Question From my reading of Nixon's "don't strike the king unless you intend to kill him" comment, he believed himself invincible in the face of the foreign forces in Southeast Asia. Has any assassination plot ever been unearthed? If anyone would know, you would, Tim. Thank you. I hope your travels were productive.
It is hard to comprehend how a man with so many fatal flaws made it all the way to the White House. It always fascinates me to see how nature seems to balance major personality handicaps with outstanding gifts for some people. That's how men like Hitler, Mussolini, etc get charisma and advance in life with such a neck-breaking speed that by the time people realize who they really are it's too late. Nixon certainly was not a crazy dictator but madness possessed him too. Question:
During your various researches, have you come to suspect of any other of our leaders that might have gotten away with behaviours similar to that of Nixon?
Ann asked: "Would you classify Nixon as an alcoholic? Is his voice slurred on any of the tapes?"Ann, there's no question that Nixon abused alcohol, that he used it to treat his demonic insomnia, that two drinks would get him high, that on more than several occasions he was drunk in times of crisis, and that his voice is slurred on many of the late-night tapes.
Andra wrote: Has any assassination plot against Nixon ever been unearthed?"Andra, no evidence ever has emerged of a plot to kill Nixon (or of a "silent coup" engineered by American intelligence through the Watergate fiasco). After the killings of JFK, RFK, and Martin Luther King, the Secret Service was hyper-vigilant in the Nixon years.
Fausto asked: "Have you come to suspect of any other of our leaders that might have gotten away with behaviours similar to that of Nixon?"Fausto, among modern-era presidents, LBJ was given to scalding outbursts of incoherent rage; Reagan was, to be polite, intellectually disengaged during his second term; Clinton committed perjury (if lying about sex is indeed a felony) and was impeached for it; and George W. Bush secretly delegated so much of his war-making powers to Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the American intelligence agencies that a harsh critic of his conduct in office could call it dereliction of presidential duty.
But there will never be another Nixon.
Hi Tim, thanks for doing this Q&A.Question:
How important was the idea of a "decent interval" to Nixon and Kissinger in ending the Vietnam war?
Question:
Was the Nixon Administration the most corrupt in American history? That label is usually applied to Harding's Administration but the blatant selling of ambassadorships and the idea that there were actually hundreds of thousands of dollars in hard cash within the walls of the White House and within reach of the President was jaw dropping.
Thanks Tim
Daniel wrote: 1) "How important was the idea of a "decent interval" to Nixon and Kissinger in ending the Vietnam war?2) Was the Nixon Administration the most corrupt in American history?"
Daniel, on the first question, I will let Nixon and Kissinger speak for themselves, via a link to an August 1972 White House tape. Both believed that South Vietnam would be defeated by the enemy. Both wanted to ensure Saigon would not fall before the November 1972 presidential election. Neither wanted to be blamed for the military defeat.
Here's the tape:
http://millercenter.org/presidentialc...
2) Before Nixon, there were crooked presidencies, notably the Grant and Harding administrations. But by almost any measure, and certainly by the sheer number of senior officials indicted and convicted for high crimes in office, Nixon's was the most crooked of all. And no president before or since was named as an un-indicted co-conspirator in an obstruction of justice case. Nixon was forced to resigned because his impeachment by the House and conviction in the Senate was a certainty by the summer of 1974. Without the presidential pardon issued by Ford, it was highly likely that Nixon would face a criminal conviction after leaving office. It's a legalism, but nonetheless a fact, that acceptance of the pardon was tantamount to an admission of guilt.
QUESTION (I am unable to bold this.)
Having read your above answer to Jill,I feel you have ever so slightly tapped into what my question is about:
"Did Kissinger want to war to continue? Was he rather fond of treating Nixon as his puppet in many incidences?"
Having read your above answer to Jill,I feel you have ever so slightly tapped into what my question is about:
"Did Kissinger want to war to continue? Was he rather fond of treating Nixon as his puppet in many incidences?"
Gwennyth asked: "Did Kissinger want the war to continue? Was he rather fond of treating Nixon as his puppet?"Gwennyth, it's important to grasp the fact that Nixon was the strategist and Kissinger the tactician in matters of war and diplomacy. In no sense was Nixon a puppet for Kissinger. Nixon gave the orders and, with some important exceptions, Kissinger carried them out, often with fatal results.
The mantra of the Nixon White House regarding the Vietnam War was "peace with honor." Neither was achieved. Saigon fell eight months after Nixon fled Washington; the end of the war brought dishonor and defeat to the United States and the American military. Kissinger had the audacity to entitle one of his many memoirs "Ending the Vietnam War." It was the enemy that ended the war by defeating the United States and its allies.
Tim wrote: "Gwennyth asked: "Did Kissinger want the war to continue? Was he rather fond of treating Nixon as his puppet?"
Gwennyth, it's important to grasp the fact that Nixon was the strategist and Kissinger..."
Thank you very much,Tim.
Gwennyth, it's important to grasp the fact that Nixon was the strategist and Kissinger..."
Thank you very much,Tim.
Hi Tim,Thanks for coming on here to answer our questions. I finished the book a few days ago and really enjoyed it.
Recently I've been doing a lot of research on FDR and his exercise of executive power which pales in comparison with that of Nixon. However I began to wonder if some of the ways in which FDR exercised his executive power - which history mostly treats as being for good - first in his efforts to bring the US out of depression and then fight and win WW2 -were actually the beginning of a change in the exercise of power that inevitably led to the corruption we saw with the Nixon Administration. Under FDR there was a centralization of government power through various agencies of the New Deal and later more centralized control of military command by the Commander in Chief. This included bypassing Congress to get weapons to the Allies before Pearl Harbor for example.
Question: Do you think the changes that happened in FDR's time as president helped create the conditions whereby Nixon or someone like him could come to power and honestly believe they were following an acceptable precedent of executive control in war time - including Nixon's belief that if the president did it, it wasn't illegal?
TR asked: "...Did FDR help create the conditions whereby Nixon [believed] he was following an acceptable precedent of executive control in war time - including Nixon's belief that if the president did it, it wasn't illegal?"TR -- Arthur M. Scheslinger wrote a book called "The Imperial Presidency" in 1973, at the height of the Watergate imbroglio, arguing that Presidents continuously had usurped power from Congress and the courts, in violation of the Constitution, especially in times of war and crisis.
The imperial presidency really begins with Theodore Roosevelt. He himself wrote that his presidency possessed "more power than in any other office in any great republic or constitutional monarchy of modern times." He, not Congress, set the nation's legislative agenda.
In May 1941, FDR declared a state of unlimited national emergency. Attached is a Congressional Research Service report (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/98-...) defining FDR's emergency powers: “The President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens.”
In the Korean War and the Vietnam War, presidents took virtually unlimited military action, regardless of the fact that under the Constitution only Congress can declare war.
But Nixon took the imperial presidency to new heights. He impounded funds Congress had appropriated; he declared that "executive privilege" protected him from disclosing information sought by Congress; he forbade congressional committees from questioning senior administration officials; and, of course, he widened the Vietnam War, invaded Cambodia, mined Haiphong harbor and bombed Hanoi without consulting Congress.
The imperial presidency was resurrected under President George W. Bush after 9/11, but that's another story.
Mod
Tim wrote: "TR asked: "...Did FDR help create the conditions whereby Nixon [believed] he was following an acceptable precedent of executive control in war time - including Nixon's belief that if the president ..."But Mr. Weiner
Thanks very much
what do you think of calling FDR an user and extended of presidential power (he coped with Supreme court reversals)?
and Nixon's an abuser of presidential power?
Can we put these two "guys" on the same page?
& when you come to NY let's have a drink - we can invite Bentley
I ask this question with the greatest respect -
Question:
What has struck me as of reading the first third of this book, is that Nixon does not make any real peace overtures to the North Vietnamese. He had promised to find an end to the war during his campaign. Many people felt that he would end the war given the Democrats were so discredited during the LBJ presidency. I would like to hear your thoughts, for it is clear to me that Nixon did not intend to end the war as he promised. His weak overtures at peace in Paris and his escalation all make me wonder about the genuine desire to end the war. IS there any real evidence to suggest that Nixon was willing to end the war? He escalates the war to try to get the North Vietnamese to negotiate, but even they were content to wait it out. Why did it take 4 years for Nixon to come to the same conclusion that could have been made in 1968? Is this because of his staunch Cold War, Anti-Communist beliefs that made him a victim of his ideals?
Mod
Vincent remember to put things in Question form to save Tim time:
Question:
I am not sure what you meant here?
what do you think of calling FDR an user and extended of presidential power (he coped with Supreme court reversals)?
and Nixon's an abuser of presidential power?
Can we put these two "guys" on the same page?
& when you come to NY let's have a drink - we can invite Bentley
I ask this question with the greatest respect -
Vincent, I don't follow you. I meant to say other 20th-century presidents have abused their powers but Nixon's the one who went too far.
Tim wrote: "Vincent, I don't follow you. I meant to say other 20th-century presidents have abused their powers but Nixon's the one who went too far."Sorry if i didn't state it well.
What I meant was that Nixon went so far that if almost (in my anti-Nixon) gives him some degree of creditability to be compared to FDR.
I agree with you. Nixon went too far.
Nixon distrust for his aides reminded me of JFK at the height of the Cuban missile crisis when he trusted only his brother Robert as his confidant and emissary to the Soviets. Two different men, two different problems. Still, similar distrust for high ranking, experienced officials who were supposed to provide sound advice. e.g. in both cases the military wanted to pursue, or continue to pursue, paths proven wrong by hindsight.Question 1:
Could this have been symptomatic of deeper issues in the fabrics of presidential support teams? These support teams are supposed to work for the greater good, not personal agendas, I would think.
Question 2:
To the best of your knowledge, do you think presidents still face similar situations these days?
Tim, the title of your book is "One Man Against the World," which I really think sums up his outlook on life. I realize that your book is limited to Nixon's presidency, so let me know if this is off topic. But I was wondering the following:Question: In your research on Nixon's early life did you find any keys to why he developed the huge chip on his shoulder, along with his conviction that everyone was out to get him and could not be trusted?
Mod
Sorry if i didn't state it well.
What I meant..."
Vincent, I didn't understand the question before - and I am still not understanding it to a large extent now - I guess. Are you comparing FDR to Nixon?
Bentley wrote: "Vincent wrote: "Tim wrote: "Vincent, I don't follow you. I meant to say other 20th-century presidents have abused their powers but Nixon's the one who went too far."Sorry if i didn't state it wel..."
I am denying the ability to find truth in some ways of comparing them.
Thanks for asking.
I just feel (really personal) that Nixon really (after WWII) presented the biggest challenge to our Constitution of anything in the 20th Century.
So it is difficult for me to see a stable reasonable way to compare them.
For me, Nixon may fail to be comparable to any other American President because I fail to want to believe an American President could be so self centered.
In msg 74 paragraph 4 Tim made a comparison of FDR's actions to Nixon's and I think that if one looks at the ultimate goals of FDR & Nixon they are not comparable on a level playing field.
sorry to have my personal view take up so many words from smart people
Thank you for that excellent insight Tim.Tim wrote: "TR asked: "...Did FDR help create the conditions whereby Nixon [believed] he was following an acceptable precedent of executive control in war time - including Nixon's belief that if the president ..."
Mod
Sorry if i did..."
No problem Vincent - I just did not understand where you were going with your question and wanted to understand. Now I do. I do not think it was clearly posted at the beginning. That might explain the confusion.
This is an intense book indeed. I repeat, it is hard to fathom so much corruption originating from such a high office. Scary stuff!Question:
Was there evidence of any good deeds from Nixon in the newly released tapes? Anything not done for political gains?
Fausto asked: Was there evidence of any good deeds by Nixon in the newly released tapes?Fausto, the new tapes show Nixon knew that his presidency was in deep peril before he was sworn in for his second term in January 1973. How deeply it must have hurt him to stand down from the office he had sought for so long! But he did, sparing the nation the nightmare of his inevitable impeachment by the House and conviction in the Senate.
Mod
Bentley wrote: "Tim you are right - at least Nixon did do that for the nation."I don't know if he did it for the nation but.................. I felt so badly for his daughter Julie, the younger one, who seemed to stick to him to the end and afterward - that was or maybe should have been the biggest blow to him.
Mod
Mod
Question: You indicated that you interviewed President Gerald Ford regarding the legacy of Richard Nixon. I would be interested in your thoughts about Ford's view of Nixon and his presidency as well as his feelings about his subsequent pardon of Nixon.
Being from Michigan, originally, I would like to also hear what Gerald Ford felt about Nixon, especially when one considers the fact that his presidency was tarnished irreparably by the Nixon Administration's policies and the overall pardoning of Nixon by Ford.
Mike wrote: "Being from Michigan, originally, I would like to also hear what Gerald Ford felt about Nixon, especially when one considers the fact that his presidency was tarnished irreparably by the Nixon Admin..."Hi Mike
I don't think that Ford's presidency was tarnished by this act.
I think (maybe except Washington and Jefferson) there is always something that some say tarnish any given presidency.
I think that Ford acted courageously to protect the power of the Presidency and the country.
I will be curious too for Tim's response but I do think that Ford represented the high ethics that was necessary as a nominee to become VP after Agnew left in disgrace. I think a lesser man would have been rejected.
And Ford exercised the executive power and did not let the congress dilute the power of the presidency.
I was really an adult then and saw and see no tarnish at all.
Thanks for your input
Vince
Bentley wrote: "Tim you are right - at least Nixon did do that for the nation."Indeed. Still, it is unnerving to see that his biggest service was actually self serving at that juncture. A troubled man, with the ability to start nuclear annihilation, scheming to save his own skin. Not how I want to think of the de-facto leader of the free world.
Vincent wrote: "Mike wrote: "Being from Michigan, originally, I would like to also hear what Gerald Ford felt about Nixon, especially when one considers the fact that his presidency was tarnished irreparably by th..."In hindsight, Ford was a good out for the situation. I wonder...
Question:
At the time, was Ford the indispensable candidate in the eyes of most stakeholders or were there doubts about how much support he would receive from the political class as president?
Looking back on my interview with Ford, here are my thoughts: had Ford not issued the pardon, Nixon faced criminal indictment as a private citizen stripped of his presidential powers. It would have been a long and ugly spectacle....in Ford's words, the ultimate "national nightmare." Ford was always seen as an accidental president, and the pardon greatly reduced his chances of being elected in his own right. And thus came to power Jimmy Carter, who ran against everything Nixon represented.
Mod
Folks, Vincent et al - remember this thread is for Tim to respond to the questions posted. Make sure to use the format as Fausto used correctly in message 96 so that Tim can answer questions easily and without having to read through a lot of back and forth or personal comments.
Tim, thanks for taking the time to address our questions. It is an honor to be able to glimpse into your thought process while writing this book.I have a comment and 2 old questions I would love to hear your comments about.
Nixon distrust for his aides reminded me of JFK at the height of the Cuban missile crisis when he trusted only his brother Robert as his confidant and emissary to the Soviets. Two different men, two different problems. Still, similar distrust for high ranking, experienced officials who were supposed to provide sound advice. e.g. in both cases the military wanted to pursue, or continue to pursue, paths proven wrong by hindsight.
Question 1:
Could this have been symptomatic of deeper issues in the fabrics of presidential support teams? These support teams are supposed to work for the greater good, not personal agendas, I would think.
Question 2:
To the best of your knowledge, do you think presidents still face similar situations these days?
QuestionThank you for the opportunity to discussing this book. I am curious to know how do you think Nixon's foreign policy success/failures compare to George W. Bush? I ask about him in particular since both Presidents were involved in hugely unpopular wars.
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide (other topics)One Man Against the World: The Tragedy of Richard Nixon (other topics)
One Man Against the World: The Tragedy of Richard Nixon (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Gary J. Bass (other topics)Tim Weiner (other topics)
Tim Weiner (other topics)
Andra, he did, but more often than not against his own political will and instincts.
For example, he created the Environmental Protection Agency.Publicly, he declared that "the 1970's absolutely must be the years when America pays its debt to the past by reclaiming the purity of its air, its waters, and our living environment. It is literally now or never."
Privately, he said "the environment is not an issue that is worth a damn to us." He thought the environmental movement was a leftist attack against capitalism and corporate America.
But he was-- as good political leaders must -- following the people, not leading them. Huge nationwide demonstrations on the first Earth Day in April 1970 showed the powerful demand of Americans citizens to stop the pollution of our air and water. Congress overwhelmingly backed the will of the people. Nixon had to choice but to sign the legislation.
Nixon also supported desegregation of schools, not a popular decision among his political base, the "silent majority." But again, he had no choice; the Supreme Court demanded it.
And I think he showed courage and grace in resigning the presidency -- a decision that defied and defiled everything for which he'd hoped and dreamed for decades -- rather than put the country through the ordeal of impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate.