The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
One Man Against the World
PRESIDENTIAL SERIES
>
WE ARE OPEN - WEEK ONE - PRESIDENTIAL SERIES: ONE MAN AGAINST THE WORLD - October 19th - October 25th - Author's Note and Chapter(s) One - Four - (1 - 42) - No Spoilers, please
I am Lily from Wisconsin. I love studying history. I majored in it in college as a non trad (older adult) and graduated with two majors in the field. Most of my studies were ancient and medieval European history and Early American History. So, delving into 20th century political history is a new adventure for me. I am pleased to find a history book club here. I was 8 when Nixon was elected and 14 when he resigned. I had a brother in law, my sister's husband, in Viet Nam, so that war touched deep in our home. He came home safe but had some serious issues with drug abuse to deal with. Also my husband had two older brothers in Viet Nam in that period, both made it home safe. That said, it is really intriging to read about the politics of the war now that the magic file box is open and public.
My parents did not like him at all. My mom referred to him as Tricky Dick all the time so I first heard that nickname for Nixon at home as a kid.
Do I think he was a good president? I am not sure as I never gave him much thought as an adult. However, reading this book has really shocked me, in a good way. I am curious about the 1960's and 70's, as I was a child then and did not understand the greater picture. Its fun looking back, and its also a little scary. Learning Cheney and Rumsfeld were Nixon's men early on gives one pause.
Enjoying this read immensely.
Hi. I'm Kressel from Rockland County, a suburb of NYC. I think I came to love history because of some excellent teachers in junior high and high school, but it was helped along by a love for journalism, which I got from my late father, who was a news junkie. I was born in 1968, the year Nixon was elected, and I was six when he resigned. I do have a vague memory of standing with my parents and some older relatives of ours in a bungalow colony in the Catskills in the summer of 1974 and saying, "Nixon is the president," and then being told, "No, now Ford is the president." Either I'd been hearing a lot of news at the time or they had all just been talking about Watergate.
I think Nixon was disgusting. Last year, this group read a book about LBJ, so I already knew that he sabotaged Johnson's attempts at peace in Vietnam so that he'd win the presidency, but reading about the same thing in your book made it all seem worse. I just can't relate to that all-consuming drive for power, especially since he wasn't an ideologue and it was just power for power's sake. At least that's my impression so far. Looking forward to more.
To the exile question, Nixon played it well by moving to NYC and building up a campaign for 1968. It shows his political mastery in play, no doubt.
Kressel wrote: "Hi. I'm Kressel from Rockland County, a suburb of NYC. I think I came to love history because of some excellent teachers in junior high and high school, but it was helped along by a love for journa..."I agree, reading this book has made me feel digust for Nixon and his manipulations, especially the peace talk sabotgue. And all of it hidden from public until now.
The book is fascinating reading and I'm really enjoying all the chapters flow together. It will be interesting to see how Richard Nixon's career and life plays out in this work as I believe he was one of the more qualified Presidents to hold the job however got caught up in circumstances of his own doing that brought him down very hard.I believe I will play the Nixon advocate on these discussions and readings just for the sake of seeing how all the lectures and discussions play out. I really enjoy the book it's excellent reading it flows very well it's very difficult to put down as you want to keep going from page to page. One thing does come to mind is that I believe the same situation would play out for any president that if someone is to take his career and his life in micro study as the author is done I believe similar situations and circumstances would be exactly the same with many other presidents that have serve red our country, including the one currently in residence.
Let the readings begin
Chef......it will be fun to have a Nixon advocate in the discussion!! We know as history plays out that many Presidents were involved in some, shall we way, unusual activities that certainly came close to or were against the law and Constitution. We have seen that FDR, for example, was very liberal in the actions he sometimes took and what he shared and what he didn't. Things slowly come to the surface through released and declassified documents which would have, at the time, probably caused quite some real problems for the sitting President. The difference, I think, was that we were in a very unpopular war, it was the age of rise of the media, and Nixon truly believed that he was within his rights to bypass the Congress, using executive privilege as his excuse (a concept that had not been legally tested before.) I have a feeling there we might be shocked at some of the activities within the executive branch if they were made public. Call me a cynic!!
Jill wrote: "Chef......it will be fun to have a Nixon advocate in the discussion!! We know as history plays out that many Presidents were involved in some, shall we way, unusual activities that certainly came c..."I believe we'd be shocked if we saw the behind the scenes of all the Presidents....
1. Hi I'm Mark Klobas and I live in Phoenix. I've had a love for history for as long as I can remember, though initially my interests were focused more in European history than U.S. I've long felt that understanding Nixon is key to understanding our nation today, which is why I am always interested in learning more about the man and his presidency. 2. I was born the year he won reelection, so there isn't much I remember about him.
3. My family never discussed Nixon; what I initially learned about him came form references to Watergate in the news and the image of a former president who occasionally popped up as an "elder statesman" with a new book or a comment about current affairs. And there were those "Nixon: Tanned, Rested, and Ready," which in retrospect I hoped was ironic.
4. I'm really torn about the question as to whether Nixon should have been pardoned. While I appreciate Ford's intent, I do wonder if the nation would have been better served with a full investigation of Nixon's responsibility and the precedent of a conviction of a president for wrongdoing.
5. I think Nixon was fairly treated -- perhaps more than he deserved to be.
6. My view coming into the book is that for all of his abilities Nixon was one of the worst presidents in American history. Whatever his accomplishments, he committed illegal acts in violation of his oath as president, acts that were undertaken to advance his tenure and power and not the best interests of the nation as a whole (I know that he saw it differently, but then that was yet another of his failings as a president).
Chapter 1: "A great, bad man"
I love the title for this chapter, as it can be read in a couple of different ways, both of which are applicable. This served for me (as did the Author's Note) as an introduction to Weiner's take on Nixon, along with a condensed biography of his early years. It was useful, especially given that, as with most presidents, elements of his early career can shed light on his policies once in office.
Chapter 2: "This is treason"
Nixon's interference in the Vietnam peace talks is something that has always seemed to me to be a fairly recent discovery, and I liked Weiner's description of it as it draws upon everything we have discovered to lay it out in detail. I think Weiner also uses it to establish the Nixon we will encounter in future chapters -- a hard-nosed politician who will do whatever he thinks is necessary to achieve his goals, irrespective of whether those goals are in the best interest of the nation. I couldn't help but wonder, though, if LBJ's response to the discovery of Nixon's interference would have been so restrained had he been the Democratic nominee instead of Humphrey. Johnson doesn't strike me as the one to simply issue warnings when his own career was on the line.
Chapter 3: "He was surrounded by enemies"
Weiner uses this chapter to introduce the larger cast of characters involved in the scandals surrounding Nixon's presidency. I must confess that some of the details were unfamiliar to me, and it was interesting to learn who Huston Mitchell, et. al., were.
Chapter 4: "He will let them know who is boss around here"
This chapter left me wondering if anyone has undertaken a study of Nixon and his sense of masculinity, as this really suggested the degree to which it may have influenced his decision making. Desiring to force progress in the talks, Nixon assents to Kissinger's proposal to bomb North Vietnamese positions in Cambodia. I can see why this appealed to Nixon, not just because it was something new, but it was something aggressive as well -- and Nixon seems concerned with projecting a tough image. The contrast here is with the alternative of further concessions that might have expanded on what the Johnson administration was achieving in Paris just a few months before. We'll never know whether further concession would have achieved more in 1969; what we see instead is Nixon choosing to expand a war in an effort to get out of it. Did they really think that expanding the bombing would succeed when bombing up to that point in the war had failed? Or did it just satisfy Nixon's desire to look tough and project determination?
message 111:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Oct 24, 2015 09:21AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Here is the link:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
I just finished chapters 1-4. Like others here there are two big things that hit me: What a wonderful writer
Tim Weiner is and all the horrible things that were going on and being lied about. As Chef said, "I believe we'd be shocked if we saw the behind the scenes of all the Presidents.... ".Indeed, and I'm sure we will find out more as time goes on and things are declassified. Thank you Bentley for the opportunity. Also, big thank you to Tim for the great book. It is written so well!
Mod
So far so good. I am finding the discussion on Vietnam very fascinating. I also like how the author is bringing in the beginnings of the illegal activity. The Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon eras are truly one of the darkest times of our history (my opinion). Combat against the communist forces world wide. The ghost of nuclear destruction hiding under the bed. Race and war turmoil within the United States. We could have slipped to a dictatorship in a heartbeat.
Mod
I think everyone has hit on the points I had quite nicely. To me, the strength of the early chapters lays in the revelations regarding Nixon's treasonous actions (and Kissinger's role in them) in subverting peace talks in order to prolong the Vietnam War and guarantee his election. I had heard rumors of this, but had never actually seen it produced with citations to back up the argument before. I do think the part about the 1960 election being "stolen" was overblown. Most of the other sources I have read, particularly Robert Caro's brilliant works on Lyndon Johnson, argue persuasively that Johnson did not actually have that much sway in Texas, and that the Illinois result was actually not that surprising given Chicago's huge Irish population.
Nick wrote: "I do think the part about the 1960 election being "stolen" was overblown"David Greenberg had an article in Slate back in 2000 which described the lengths Republicans went to dispute Kennedy's victory, not just in Illinois but in other states as well. Reading it came as a surprise to me, because it's not something I had encountered until now.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_an...
Mod
Robert A. Caro stands out - by the way Caro is brilliant when it comes to his work on LBJ - I agree
Robert A. Caro
Just before starting this book, I had read the other Nixon biography that came out this year,
by
Evan Thomas. So please forgive me if I make some comparisons between the two books.One of the things that I noticed about Nixon prior to the Presidency is how he surrounded himself with people who knew how to read him, who knew when he was giving an order when he was just blowing off some steam. I think in the case of the 1968 election and the the Paris Peace talks, I think he surrounded himself with enough good men, relatively speaking, who were able to provide him with the plausible deniability necessary to sabotage the talks. Obviously LBJ saw through this charade, but decided against informing the nation. However, if LBJ had had more concrete evidence of Nixon's complicity, I think he would've said something. Would anyone agree with me?
Christopher wrote: "Just before starting this book, I had read the other Nixon biography that came out this year, by [author:Evan Thomas|71..."I thinks I would agree Christopher. LBJ strikes me as the kind of man that would not roll over and play dead if someone were at him. I think you are right if he could have proved it he would have gone on the offensive. However, even though I have read little of LBJ he did seem to have moments when the world pressed in on him and he responded by turning inward. Prior to this read I did not know that Nixon had messed with the peace talks. I find that more than underhanded.
Wonderful book so far. I agree with everyone's response thus far. I'm still shocked by Kissinger's role in sabotaging the peace talks. I had such a different opinion of hit.
message 122:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Oct 25, 2015 11:40AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
by [author:Evan Thomas|71..."Christopher I agree with you but then again by that time LBJ did not want to run again - he was fed up. I also wonder to WHAT EXTENT LBJ knew about what Nixon had done - I think he would have least blown his top. I think Christopher that is a good question to ask Tim Weiner on the Ask Tim thread - what did LBJ actually know and when did LBJ know it and to what extent was he informed about Nixon's dirty manipulations of the peace process behind his back.
Mike wrote: "Hello all. My name is Mike Green. I am a historian that teaches History, mostly in the modern era from 1492 to the present. I specialized in American Labor History and Radical History of the early ..."Hi Mike
Sorry for the delay - just to challenge your comment in no. 6 that "nobody but Nixon..." could have opened relations with China at this time. It is true in that the Presidents authority would have been needed but another president at the time could have.
G wrote: "Hi, I am 'G' (short for Germaine) and I am from the Metropolitan New York area. I cannot remember a time when I did not love history. There is often a 'fantasy' quality to it, even when it is painf..."Hi G
It is true that the EPA was established during his term. But I think that it was a surge of the times. The Silent Spring by Rachel Carlson had just been published in 1962 and the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts were coming. I audited a course at Columbia last year by two Senatorial Aids - one to Muskie and I forget who the other was too. There was just building need for water and air protection during the population and prosperity growth after WW II and it was time for this part.
I think Nixon supported this as he had to but would never have generated it alone - the EPA that is
Rachel Carson
Jack wrote: "Hi, I am Jack. I am a Navy officer and have been in for the past...25 years...yikes. Anyways, I enjoy many, many aspects of history...modern all the way to ancient. I especially like books like the..."Hi Jack - from your item 6 I just want to take exception to the inclusion of LBJ -
mostly as I think that he really led the next stage of the equality battle in America and for his initiation of the Great Society. I have on my list to read the Caro books - but my list gets longer and I get older - I also believe that I know that he was for the beginning working under the shadow of JFK - just a comment to insulate LBJ from the category with GW and tricky Dick etc
Jason wrote: "I just finished chapters 1-4. Like others here there are two big things that hit me: What a wonderful writer Tim Weiner is and all the horrible things..."I'm sure there are secrets in each administration. I think that has to be a hard part of the job, to make decisions for a country that really doesn't/can't know every detail. The issue is, the character of that President/person that makes those decisions.
Jack wrote: "So far so good. I am finding the discussion on Vietnam very fascinating. I also like how the author is bringing in the beginnings of the illegal activity. The Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon eras are t..."And I also wonder on the other hand, where would we be if someone else were in the White House, in this case Humphries.
Nick wrote: "I think everyone has hit on the points I had quite nicely. To me, the strength of the early chapters lays in the revelations regarding Nixon's treasonous actions (and Kissinger's role in them) in s..."It is an interesting predicament. His handling of the peace talks may not have ultimately been the factor to get him the election, but what he did was not right. Was it treasonous as LBJ thought?
Christopher wrote: "Just before starting this book, I had read the other Nixon biography that came out this year, by [author:Evan Thomas|71..."I would agree as well. That was why he was a good, bad man. He knew who to surround himself with.
Teri wrote: "Nick wrote: "I think everyone has hit on the points I had quite nicely. To me, the strength of the early chapters lays in the revelations regarding Nixon's treasonous actions (and Kissinger's role ..."Pre-election it was certainly treasonous to undermine the working of the current administration to my mind.
Think now if an American clandestinely told the Israelis to not make a deal with the US that the administration was working on. - not openly but clandestinely promising more...............
Vincent wrote: "Teri wrote: "Nick wrote: "I think everyone has hit on the points I had quite nicely. To me, the strength of the early chapters lays in the revelations regarding Nixon's treasonous actions (and Kiss..."Absolutely agree!
I'm finding a bit much of the author's opinion in the narrative as opposed to more reliance on primary sources. But that's just me.
Virginia wrote: "I'm finding a bit much of the author's opinion in the narrative as opposed to more reliance on primary sources. But that's just me."I have not been bothered by that so far. We are still early in the book, so we will see if that changes. There is a lot to his bibliography. I worked on putting it on our Bibliography thread, and it was fascinating to hear/read/watch some of the primary docs/data. Most are online and more coming.
Mod
Mod
Vincent make sure to do citations of books and authors not mentioned in the book:
by
Rachel Carson
Robert A. Caro
Hi, I am Mary from Northern California. I was a history major in college and believe there is so much we can learn, process and apply to our lives nod communities from the beginning of history!!I just the Broadway play "Hamilton." Simply spectacular and yet another twist on our amazing American history. Must admit am fascinated with Anerican history.
2/3 I was alive when Nixon was born. Never liked him and never voted for him. I have always felt he was paranoid and smarmy. Nixon did open up China - among other things. I am interested in reviewing his presidency in retrospect to take a fresh view of both his accomplishments and failures. He was certainly, in my view, not our worst president.
4. I do believe he should have been pardoned. At the time, we needed to heal and move on a an issue understood by Ford.
5. I would like to review his treatment. As students of history, am sure we understand the brutal nature of politics.
6. Again, I do not believe Nixon was our worst president. And certainly don't believe our "best" president. Am anxious to review my "current perceptions and see how they change.
I have been traveling significantly this past month. While off to a slow start with this book, I look forward to reading and playing an active part in our discussion.
Hi, I am Mary from Northern California. I was a history major in college and believe there is so much we can learn, process and apply to our lives nod communities from the beginning of history!!I just the Broadway play "Hamilton." Simply spectacular and yet another twist on our amazing American history. Must admit am fascinated with Anerican history.
2/3 I was alive when Nixon was born. Never liked him and never voted for him. I have always felt he was paranoid and smarmy. Nixon did open up China - among other things. I am interested in reviewing his presidency in retrospect to take a fresh view of both his accomplishments and failures. He was certainly, in my view, not our worst president.
4. I do believe he should have been pardoned. At the time, we needed to heal and move on a an issue understood by Ford.
5. I would like to review his treatment. As students of history, am sure we understand the brutal nature of politics.
6. Again, I do not believe Nixon was our worst president. And certainly don't believe our "best" president. Am anxious to review my "current perceptions and see how they change.
I have been traveling significantly this past month. While off to a slow start with this book, I look forward to reading and playing an active part in our discussion.
Francie wrote: "Wonderful book so far. I agree with everyone's response thus far. I'm still shocked by Kissinger's role in sabotaging the peace talks. I had such a different opinion of hit."Francie....I think that is one of the problems I am having as well. I always have thought the Kissinger is a brilliant man and am disappointed (for lack of a better word) at his role in illegal activities. What were his motivations? I asked the author that question on the "Ask Tim" thread and hope he will enlighten me when he visits us this week.
Just a reminder to everyone that the Week Two folder is open for this week's discussion:https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Vincent wrote: "G wrote: "Hi, I am 'G' (short for Germaine) and I am from the Metropolitan New York area. I cannot remember a time when I did not love history. There is often a 'fantasy' quality to it, even when i..."You are probably right, Vincent, but even if he wouldn't have started it on his own, he could have stymied it and he didn't. Popular momentum is a strong thing, but not always enough to get things done.
Sorry I am a bit late in this posting. What amuses me about this book is the stark differences between what we are reading and the reality of the time as portrayed in film and the news. I was a bit to young to remember the 68 campaign, I was born that year, but as a historian I am compelled to look at the promises Nixon made in 68 to end the Vietnam War and the treasonous act the he and Kissinger did in destroying the peace talks. Then, when they get into power they find that they have the beast by the tail and it appears that they are afraid to let go. It is the observation of Danial P. Moynihan that strikes me in that "it was not his war, but after being in office a few years it became his war and people soon felt that he started it." Here is a guy that was more of a cold warrior than LBJ. LBJ never cared for what he called "that bitch of a war." It is tragic in that Nixon is consumed by his beliefs and the practical everyday dealings with the war. He first destroys the possibility of peace and has to keep South Vietnam from folding while pursuing peace. Then, he has to deal with the military who are saying that the bombing is ineffective and their solution is to bomb. Why did he not say WHAT? Whoa And then he continues done the road of illegality, both internationally and domestically, by authorizing the bombing of Cambodia and Laos, two countries that we were not at war with and that were going though their own internal problems. What appears to be more apparent is that neither the USSR nor China were really helping North Vietnam that much. I would be interested in knowing how much. But for all his intelligence why did he not just say this is not working and we need to find a way out. Vietnamization was not the way. How could we expect a people to support such a corrupt government? I could see if it really was a democratic government, but this is the Cold War paradox and I often wonder why we choose to go down this road of destruction when we know that it cannot end well. Vietnam did not end well. By extension we continue to make mistakes in Iraq. We did not plan at all, and assumed that they all wanted what we wanted. That is strikingly incorrect. So, I leave it up to the group, Nixon the ultimate cold warrior, why did he expand this war? I am looking forward to reading more to find or get an answer.
Bentley wrote: "Great points Nick - when an author or famous book is mentioned in the book we are reading we do not have to cite them for purposes of moving along the discussion - however if we cite other authors ..."I think that your are correct. However, as I have read Caro's work on LBJ, I am struck by the cynicism at times and some of the less than admiral political tactics that LBJ pursued. Some tactics were needed, the Civil Rights Act of 57, 59, 60, 64. Masterful. But some of the things he did to play into destroying some "liberal" politicians was less than acceptable. I am struck by the incident in "The Master of the Senate", by Caro. Master of the Senate
Virginia wrote: "I'm finding a bit much of the author's opinion in the narrative as opposed to more reliance on primary sources. But that's just me."I tend to agree. However, I am of the opinion that any book about Nixon cannot gloss over Nixon's ruthlessness. And the author here, I think, is being honest in his assessment using facts. As far as I have read, and others can correct me, Nixon's actions were less than honest or admirable. He lied about ending the war to win an election and then allowed himself to be consumed by the military's actions thinking this would end the war and knowing that his predecessor had left the presidency in disgrace for running that war in the same manner. Nixon was suppose to change and instead he expanded the war. I think that LBJ's problem was that he did not want to deal with this war and let other's deal with it. His real goal was the Great Society. These goals are admirable. Nixon was suppose to end the War and he stated in his Inaugural address that he wanted to be a peacemaker. Well, he made an awful lot of war before he got a deal that he could have gotten 4 years before. I think that the author is being honest in assessing the new information and even presenting a new starker and even less picture of a paranoid and ruthless man who let these characteristics ruin him. In the end, they did.
He did put himself in a pickle when he killed the chances of peace talks in Paris.Be sure to keep comments to the current the threads reading assignment. I think you're starting to bring up some topics in Chapter 5. Head on over to the Week Two thread for Chapters 5-7: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Mike wrote: "Sorry I am a bit late in this posting. What amuses me about this book is the stark differences between what we are reading and the reality of the time as portrayed in film and the news. I was a bit..."
Mod
Great points Nick - when an author or famous book is mentioned in the book we are reading we do not have to cite them for purposes of moving along the discussion - however if we cite other authors or other books - we must do a proper citation -
Robert A. Caro stands out - by the way Caro is brilliant when it comes to his work on LBJ - I agree
Robert A. Caro
Mod
G wrote: "Vincent wrote: "G wrote: "Hi, I am 'G' (short for Germaine) and I am from the Metropolitan New York area. I cannot remember a time when I did not love history. There is often a 'fantasy' quality to..."Hi G
So would that more people could have sat in on that course with me.
Most of the congress had served in wartime and many ha been in combat. They knew what it was to strive for a common goal.
Air fare was high and most stayed in Washington - they ate, drank, partied often.
I so much got the feeling it was Congressional Momentum not popular momentum driving it through. And the folks they had to make the water and air safe for were the guys (not sexist - then mostly guys) who fought in the trenches and their families.
This is of course my opinion but I think it was a different time.
Mike wrote: "Sorry I am a bit late in this posting. What amuses me about this book is the stark differences between what we are reading and the reality of the time as portrayed in film and the news. I was a bit..."Hi Mike - thanks for this post - my view is that Nixon wanted "his peace" to his credit - "our peace" for Nixon if achieved by LBJ or someone else was not interesting and would have hindered his path to the Presidency.
Nixon had a lack of empathy - therefore it was easy to be ruthless. I recently took a course on "Evil" and a bedrock of all the cases we looked at was a lack of empathy.
I really like your favorite quote from your profile page.
Virginia wrote: "I'm finding a bit much of the author's opinion in the narrative as opposed to more reliance on primary sources. But that's just me."not ignoring the valid replies in messages 134 & 144 I would note that some of these facts are so new to so many of the readers and potential readers of this book that I think that Weiner is trying to put them into a perspective.
For a book about a white male American born in the 20th Century the title itself "One Man Against the Word" is almost editorializing I think
One of the positive things about the HBC is that with all the input and other references that we seem to learn as we (me anyway) read these books with more thought that "private reads" and the input of others doing the same is that we see it differently - hopefully better.
Having read a previous Weiner book with HBC I am more comfortable in letting his assessments have value until I know otherwise.
Very well said, Vincent. Thank you for your input.
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Chasing Shadows: The Nixon Tapes, the Chennault Affair, and the Origins of Watergate (other topics)Fatal Politics: The Nixon Tapes, the Vietnam War, and the Casualties of Reelection (other topics)
Vietnam: A History (other topics)
Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full (other topics)
Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ken Hughes (other topics)Stanley Karnow (other topics)
Conrad Black (other topics)
Conrad Black (other topics)
Niall Ferguson (other topics)
More...
"...the first adult nonfiction book I ever read All the President's Men by Carl Bernstein."
Your citations should look like this:
Thank you.