One hundred years ago today, Richard Nixon was born in Yorba Linda, California. In post-World War II American history, he is probably one of the three most influential presidents. Here, we’ll look at why his legacy is so important.
Watergate – Everyone reading this understands that Watergate is just a short-hand for a number of different events that occurred during the 1972 presidential campaign. Nixon resigned in order to avoid impeachment; in effect, the 1974 and 1976 elections directly resulted from these actions.
China – Prior to Nixon’s presidency, China was merely a vast, unknown land. What little we thought we knew about this nation was caused by the Korean and Vietnamese Wars, when we thought it better to fight China through its smaller surrogate allies. When he went there in 1972, he opened relations between the United States and China, which directly led to its movement from amorphous enemy to trading partner today. Nixon going to China is a term still used for when a politician does something that is ideologically unexpected.
Vietnam/the Draft – The Vietnam War extended through much of Nixon’s presidency. When students in college protested the war with huge numbers, Nixon led the move to stop war protests by ending the draft. He was right; once they were no longer personally at risk, the anti-war feelings subsided. Once we had an all-volunteer military, people rarely have had visceral feelings about our military actions since then.
Southern Strategy – Nixon is generally regarded as the author of this political plan. Johnson, his immediate predecessor, noted when the civil rights bills were passed during his tenure, that the south would be lost to the Democrats for the next generation. Nixon took advantage of this, moving a large region of the nation into the solidly Republican camp.
Looking at Nixon from today’s ideological prism presents a paradox; his presidency installed programs like the EPA; he also was singularly responsible for Title IX of Affirmative Action, which moved it from a racially based system to one that emphasized gender based perceived inequities. He was an unrepentant hawk, whose actions led us to a long-term peace with our largest enemy. He was uncomfortable with people, yet was on every Republican presidential ticket from 1952 to 1972 (with the exception of 1964, when he turned down a chance to be the candidate again).
January 10th, 2013 at 1:17 am
So I gotta ask. Who is better in office, an incompetent president or a crook?
January 10th, 2013 at 6:39 am
I still like the Nixon story about when Bill and Hillary Clinton invited him back to the White House. Nixon wrote that while he found Bill charming, his impression of Hillary is that she is one scary lady.
January 10th, 2013 at 9:50 am
“Once we had an all-volunteer military, people rarely have had visceral feelings about our military actions since then.”
This is exactly why we should have a draft.
No more entering into conflicts capriciously and even if we do get into these conflicts we don’t stay longer than both World Wars combined.
It was no different during the days of Vietnam.
Student deferments; which is why, during that era, even D students found themselves in college as long as their parents could pay for it.
Once that ended, there was a deferment for being married and a subsequent one for having children.
Deferments were also available for apprentices’ in a trade (good friend of mine used that one, brilliant).
This benefitted many people of means that could afford college or use connections to get apprenticeships.
Such as say, Dick Cheney who used three student deferments, another for being married and when that expired, conceived a child (don’t know exactly when, but his daughter was born 9 months and 2 days after the “married with no children” provision expired. I don’t, however, blame him or many of my relatives and friends that availed themselves of these loopholes.
Or say, people that could use connections to get into the National Guard.
January 10th, 2013 at 9:52 am
buzz, on a previous thread didn’t we all agree that we need a universal draft? I found it refreshing that we actually found a point of harmony.
January 10th, 2013 at 9:56 am
I wonder if Cheney served, or if Bush the Lesser was in a real branch of the service rather than occasionally keeping the skies over Dallas safe from enemy attack, they would have made different decisions.
This may be similar John McCain’s comments about torture. He has remarked that people that have never been subjected to, or been in the presence of, torture (or its brilliant rebranding as “enhanced interrogation”) seem to be proponents of this tactic.
January 10th, 2013 at 9:59 am
Good grief.
Nam is exactly why we should have a voluntary military.
Much like the Israelis everyone of age and capable should serve in some capacity besides combat. Unless a volunteer force falls short of heads we would rely on volunteers who as part of my idea would already of been trained.
Nam created nothing but resentment from both sides of the aisle and mostly the soldiers and their families themselves.
And most certainly the families of those who died for a war that was none of our concern.
Those who volunteer simply make better fighters.
But since when do liberals understand the concept of anything voluntary ?
January 10th, 2013 at 10:06 am
That last post lacked a little clarity.
A universal draft would serve only if a volunteer force fell short.
At least they’d be basically trained and ready to go if called on much like our national guard.
Which goes directly to Buzz and his sublime attack on Bushs Air Guard service.
If the sht hit the fan at least the man volunteered to serve in a capacity of preparedness.
January 10th, 2013 at 10:15 am
I agree Arriba, a draft would serve us all well.
I am also fully aware that people on both sides of the aisle took advantage of deferments as Biden’s history is much the same as Cheney’s. It is more the result of privilege rather than politics.
Arriba, even when we disagree I do consider your arguments as they are generally fact-based and objective.
January 10th, 2013 at 10:19 am
Unlike today, the chances of a National Guardman being called up in that era were beyond remote.
In other words, Dallas would have had to have been literally under attack for Bush Jr. to have been engaged in anything actually resembling a conflict.
His biggest concern would have been urban riots and Dallas was not at risk, not did many urban riots require air attacks.
January 10th, 2013 at 10:20 am
We’re always gonna have people use power and privilege; what I would actually favor is some form of universal service for everyone when they turn 18, whether it be in the military, peace corps, or something domestically. I also favor that the names and we’re they go be published so that if someone uses their power, it is clear to the rest of us.
January 10th, 2013 at 10:21 am
where not we’re; I could really use an editor.
January 10th, 2013 at 12:09 pm
“In other words, Dallas would have had to have been literally under attack for Bush Jr. to have been engaged in anything actually resembling a conflict.”
Not really.
National Guard from every state have been deployed to the middle east.
January 10th, 2013 at 1:30 pm
I’ll answer your question Patrick. I’d take Nixon over Bush any day.
January 10th, 2013 at 1:39 pm
“National Guard from every state have been deployed to the middle east.”
As I stated previously, they didn’t do that in the Vietnam era.
January 10th, 2013 at 3:41 pm
“As I stated previously, they didn’t do that in the Vietnam era.”
Means nothing.
Thank God.
Nam was not worth one American life and only gave us a bunch of junkies and cripples who didnt act like liberals and charge off to Canada or pay to get their knees capped.
An involuntary force that was drafted by force showed horrible results.
In WW2 there was a draft, but it was hardly necessary since patriotism was at its highest and kids were stumbling over each other to voluntarily enlist.
Same with both Iraq wars and Afghanistan.
We did operate on a leaner voluntary force and its Rumsfeld fault for not sending enough troops in the beggining that would of been comparable to the surge.
A draft was not the answer in Nam. Establishing moral was. But you can establish moral when the majority of draftees didnt want to be there.
You can beat up on Bush all you want, and yes, he was a crappy pilot. But hell, theres something be said for a guy that crashes a jet and gets right up and tries again.
You could throw the same crap at any man that joined the guard during the Nam era…
would you ?
IMHO every citizen or resident upon their 17th/18th birthday has to do bootcamp, 3 months, in a branch of their choice and return for 1 week maintenance twice a year.
Should the need arise we depend on the voluntary force presently active. Should the need escalate then we call upon/draft those trained and in reserve.
===============
January 10th, 2013 at 3:54 pm
Nobody was rushing to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan and many would say that our military was comprised of people from a poor economic class that saw the armed services as their only viable option, especially when they were “sold” by very motivated recruiters (read about that military discipline someday).
Under increasing pressure, recruiters were waiving drug tests, educational standards, intelligence test results and criminal records.
Additionally, I sincerely doubt the people that found themselves in the National Guard expected to end up in either Iraq or Afghanistan as that was unprecedented up until that time.
Some would feel sorry for people that joined the Guard and were then sentenced to Iraq for tour after tour. Conventional wisdom was always that the Guard was an easy way to pick up a few bucks and benefits while playing “weekend warrior”. This group simply was a victim of an overextended military.
January 10th, 2013 at 4:54 pm
“Nobody was rushing to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan and many would say that our military was comprised of people from a poor economic class that saw the armed services as their only viable option, especially when they were “sold” by very motivated recruiters (read about that military discipline someday).”
Aww bullsht.
First of all, The rush to enlist was mentioned in relation to WW2.
Secondly,with Afghanistan there was a good ration of men volunteering out of simple revenge. Even with Afghanistan being the better of two wars enlistments still grew with Iraq in play. And yeah, with a 100% voluntary force it made sense to have to drop requirements a little or else bring back a very unpopular draft.
Nice how you seem to follow the Kerry doctrine that if you’re an idiot you end up in Iraq.
And if you’re flying a jet over Texas you’re also an idiot.
Smooth move Buzz, your true code pink colors are showing.
“Some would feel sorry for people that joined the Guard and were then sentenced to Iraq for tour after tour. Conventional wisdom was always that the Guard was an easy way to pick up a few bucks and benefits while playing “weekend warrior”. This group simply was a victim of an overextended military.”
Go ahead, tell em to their faces that they were victims, I dare you.
They dont need your fckin pity
January 10th, 2013 at 5:09 pm
“I sincerely doubt the people that found themselves in the National Guard expected to end up in either Iraq or Afghanistan as that was unprecedented up until that time.”
After 911 and/or Iraq do you really think volunteers expected to be deployed to Hawaii ?
These men and women arent as fckin dumb and gullible as you presume bro. They know damn well deployments are a crap shoot(before or after 911) but they’re still contributing to the effort even as a cook can free up a more combat viable man.
Not since WW2 did we see voluntary efforts at such high levels be it recruits going abroad or support groups of all kinds right here at home doing what they could to help the troops be it care packages, free cell phones, celebrity entertainment etc, etc, etc…
January 10th, 2013 at 5:10 pm
“In WW2 there was a draft, but it was hardly necessary since patriotism was at its highest and kids were stumbling over each other to voluntarily enlist.
Same with both Iraq wars and Afghanistan.”
January 10th, 2013 at 5:11 pm
Relax, it appears we merely have a difference of opinion.
Why so angry?
January 10th, 2013 at 5:12 pm
Many of the people were already in the Gaurd or Armed Services before the war(s).
January 10th, 2013 at 5:27 pm
“Many of the people were already in the Gaurd or Armed Services before the war(s).”
I said that in #18
“They know damn well deployments are a crap shoot(before or after 911) but they’re still contributing to the effort even as a cook can free up a more combat viable man.”
January 10th, 2013 at 7:03 pm
If you want to read about how Ted Nugent avoided Vietnam, read this post as it is pretty funny. Make sure to go all the way to the bottom of the page (lots of similar tales among people my age, although I am sure many are urban legends).
He used to hang out with my brother and a few musician friends (who were then playing with the Bob Seger System when they were playing at a place called the Hideout in an Eastern suburb of Detroit).
At the time Nugent was playing in the Amboy Dukes (they used to play all of the area dances along with Bob Seger, Iggy Pop when he was in the Stooges, along with MC5, who were “accidentally” booked for my sister’s prom).
It is true that he was the only one who didn’t get high, which was even more unique among musicians in that era.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/nugent.asp
January 10th, 2013 at 8:47 pm
A draft why? We have enough soldiers ready to serve, and they are more motivated better soldiers when they volunteer.
Your argument seems to be that people will be more responsible voters when their sons are entering a draft. I don’t get it. Why aren’t people more responsible when their wallets are getting emptied for war?
January 10th, 2013 at 9:05 pm
So what Buzz.
Abercrombie my dad n I used to get stoned together in the 60s.
His story was no more different or relevant than anyone who felt it was a war none of us deserved to die for.
@ Patrick
As I said above, for liberals,volunteering is a foreign concept.