On Conservative Intellectuals and Richard Nixon

by Editors

BOOKS + IDEAS

ON CONSERVATIVE INTELLECTUALS AND RICHARD NIXON:
AN INTERVIEW WITH HISTORIAN SARAH K. MERGEL

By G. Arnold

Richard M. Nixon was one of the most influential and puzzling figures in American politics of the twentieth century. His legacy looms so large that it is often easy to gloss over his complexities. A deeply intelligent and astute politician, he was nonetheless a polarizing figure.

Sarah K. Mergel, a professor at Dalton State College in Georgia, specializes in American political and intellectual history. She has studied Nixon and the Conservative Movement in detail. Now she has a new book, Conservative Intellectuals and Richard Nixon (Palgrave Publishers, 2010), which reconsiders the complicated relationship between Nixon and other conservative leaders in the late 1960s and early 1970s. As her book reveals, it’s a fascinating story.

Having known Sarah K. Mergel from her previous essays in Bread and Circus, we thought it would be interesting to ask if she could tell us a bit more about her book and the ideas in it. Here is what she had to say.

______

Bread and Circus: Your new book touches on important aspects of American political history. Can you tell us what it’s about and why you decided to write it?

Sarah K. Mergel: Conservative Intellectuals and Richard Nixon explores the relationship between postwar conservatives and the president from 1968 to 1974. The more I read about the growth of the conservative movement after World War II, the more I realized that the conservatives would rather forget their experience with Richard Nixon. They failed to see how his presidency helped refocus their fight against liberalism and communism. Conservative Intellectuals and Richard Nixon uses the Nixon years as a window into the right’s effort to turn their ideas into a program more voters could relate to. It combines an assessment of Nixon’s presidency through the eyes of conservative intellectuals with an attempt to understand what the right gained from its experience with one of the most interesting American presidents in the twentieth century.

B&C: Richard Nixon was a man of great intelligence and political skill. His long political career had many highs and lows. As someone who has spent considerable time studying Nixon and his influence, what do you think is the most important thing that we should understand about Nixon, the politician?

Sarah K. Mergel: Ever since Watergate traumatized the nation, people have been trying to understand Richard Nixon. Based on my own study of Nixon, I think the answer is pretty simple. Everything he did during his long public life, especially after he became president, looked to his historical legacy. At heart Nixon was a practical politician; he made choices throughout his career that he thought would enhance how people would view his contribution to American life. Nixon never expected to be mired in a scandal that would do so much damage to his reputation at the time or in the future.

B&C: Looking back at his long and remarkable career, what do you think was Nixon’s most important success?

Sarah K. Mergel: I cannot point to one policy or action that Richard Nixon took that stands out as his most important success. However given the length of his political career from the late 1940s until his death in the 1990s, probably his most important success was that he was a survivor. Nixon managed to rebuild his career more times than any politician that comes to my mind.

B&C: Although people often talk about conservatism and liberalism, it seems there is not always agreement on what labels mean. How should we understand “conservatism” in the context of the era you discuss in your book?

Sarah K. Mergel: Conservatives essentially called for three things before and during the Nixon era. First, they wanted a strong national defense to prevent the spread of communism. Second, they promoted what they considered a greater respect for tradition and order. Finally, they wanted a less influential federal government in terms of social and economic policy. Simply put, they did not share the liberal’s belief that the government could or should solve all of society’s problems. They did believe that the government should protect American citizens from totalitarian threats.

B&C: Your book talks about Nixon’s relationship with the changing conservative movement. What kind of relationship was that?

Sarah K. Mergel: Richard Nixon knew he needed the support of the conservative movement as well as what he would later call the silent majority to win in 1968. In large part, Nixon lost the 1960 election to John F. Kennedy because conservatives within the Republican Party would not vote for him. The right supported him in 1968 because they thought he supported conservative policy solutions. Nevertheless, his relationship with the movement remained tenuous well into his presidency. In some instances he tried to win its support by making connections with conservatives like William F. Buckley, Jr. and Russell Kirk. But as much as conservative intellectuals wanted to believe Richard Nixon leaned to the right they always doubted his loyalty to their cause. To some extent, their doubt was well placed since he went against almost every conservative principle he pledged to uphold in 1968. He courted the conservatives when he needed them and ignored them much of the rest of the time. Richard Nixon used the conservative movement; however in the end the conservatives benefitted more from their strained relationship than did the president.

B&C: What was the biggest effect that Nixon had on the conservative movement?

Sarah K. Mergel: The conservatives widely supported Richard Nixon in 1968 and so they expected that once he took office they would have a good relationship with his administration and his policies would move the nation to the right. Since neither of these hopes came true, conservatives began to redefine their movement by distancing themselves from Richard Nixon and his policies. Essentially the biggest effect Nixon had on the conservative movement was not anything he did, but what he did not do. His failure to live up to their expectations prompted leading conservatives to no longer accept the closest thing to a conservative who could win an election (as they did in 1968). The right learned to stay true to their ideology when choosing a candidate. Their dedication paid off—in their opinion—when Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980.

B&C: Among leading conservatives, who do you think were some of those most affected by Nixon and his presidency? How so?

Sarah K. Mergel: Conservative politicians — like Barry Goldwater and Strom Thurmond — seemed less affected by Richard Nixon’s presidency than conservative intellectuals –like William F. Buckley, Jr., James Burnham, and William Rusher. The bitter disappointment felt by those intellectuals working with National Review and other conservative publications led them to rethink in some ways how they approached politics, especially future presidential races. More than anything else, conservative intellectuals and strategists realized they would have to work harder to make conservatism an acceptable political choice as opposed to something seen as a reactionary political choice. They also needed to branch out to groups not previously identified as political conservatives like disaffected liberals and evangelical Christians.

B&C: Looking at it the other way, who, if anybody, among the leading conservatives, influenced Nixon the most?

Sarah K. Mergel: Richard Nixon always seemed to want the respect of the intellectual community—both right and left—and yet he seemed to do everything possible to push them away. On the conservative side, when he took office he had a decent relationship with William F. Buckley, Jr. and Milton Friedman. However, to say that these men or any other conservative intellectual influenced Richard Nixon long term would be a stretch. At various points in his career he embraced right-leaning ideas but in the end Nixon was always his own greatest influence.

B&C: When, in your book, you talk about the Right’s effort to turn ideology into successful politics, what do you mean?

Sarah K. Mergel: The Right, in the years after World War II, began to outline their challenge to liberalism and communism and it seemed to leading conservatives no one was listening. Partly because of the social changes social changes in the 1960s and partly because of Richard Nixon’s presidency the right learned to how to promote their ideas to a wider public. Not only did they learn to sell those ideas to the people, but they learned how to see their candidates elected to public office. Conservative Richard Weaver once talked about ideas having consequences; what the Right learned from their experience with Richard Nixon was to how to show people those consequences.

B&C: Finally, what is the most important thing that you think people should take away after reading your book?

Sarah K. Mergel: National Review publisher William Rusher called the conservative decision to support Richard Nixon the “blunder of 1968.” The idea that Nixon’s presidency somehow setback the conservative movement seems wrong. When wage and price controls failed to curb inflation in the 1970s and détente failed to bring world peace, conservatives (who had been questioning those policies from the beginning) benefitted. The most important thing to take away from Conservative Intellectuals and Richard Nixon seems to me that sometimes in politics your biggest blunder can turn into your greatest advantage.

__________

Sarah K. Mergel’s Conservative Intellectuals and Richard Nixon will be released by Palgrave Publishers in early 2010.

G. Arnold is an editor of Bread and Circus Magazine and the author of several books, including Conspiracy Theory in Film, Television, and Politics and The Afterlife of America’s War in Vietnam.

Image (above): National Archives photograph (unrestricted) of a Nixon campaign trip in 1972.

_____________

“The Prince” and Pandora’s Box

by Staff

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

“The Prince” and Pandora’s Box

By Kimberlee A. Cloutier-Blazzard, Bread and Circus editor and senior writer

As I watched the second presidential debate, I turned to my husband and said, “This may not sound appropriate in a democratic republic—but when Barack Obama sits on that stool don’t you think he looks like an Eastern Prince?  You know?  The kind shown in Buddhist images of figures in the lalitasana, the ‘pose of royal ease’?  Look at how peaceful and serene his face looks.”

Now some folks who are already whipped into a xenophobic frenzy about Obama being “too foreign” and “too exotic” for America would OF COURSE take that kind of a remark as an unforgivable lapse in judgment from an elitist East Coast academic such as myself.  To them, I can’t really offer an excuse, nor an apology.  A peaceful, relaxed figure exuding intellect, confidence and poise is something I desire in a world leader. ‘Nuff said.

But, it only occurred to me later—in re-reading Stephen Greenblatt’s Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1980) this week—that McCain, too, reminds me of a prince.  Machiavelli’s prince.

Last week’s dismal news that the McCain-Palin ticket began encouraging race-driven insults and worse from their socially and economically panic-stricken audiences forced me to realize that the Republicans are not beneath any scorched-earth tactic (ahem, strategy) to help them gain the White House. They found loads of company on the low road, and discovered it makes for easy travel.  This was as true in Renaissance Italy as it is today.

As Greenblatt points out, “For Machiavelli, the prince engages in deceptions for one very clear reason: to survive.  The successful prince must be ‘a great feigner and dissembler; and men are so simple and so ready to obey present necessities, that one who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived.’…The initiated observer can always see beneath the surface and understand how appearances are manipulated by the cunning prince.”1  As Machiavelli explains it, it is in politics as it is in nature, the fox always eats the hens; yet, the sheer willingness of the victims still inspires outrage among the socially-responsible in society.2

In response to the troubling development in the Republican campaign, Georgia Democratic representative John Lewis publicly issued a condemning statement likening McCain and Palin’s tactics to George Wallace’s segregationist vitriol.  ”What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse,” wrote Lewis.  McCain’s response was to voice disappointment in his one-time hero for stifling the national political conversation with his accusations.

I have to ask: If we are routinely asked to praise John McCain for his veteran-of-foreign-war status, should we not also exult  John Lewis for his service in another kind of war?  Did Lewis not also suffer physical and mental anguish in the service of ensuring American freedom and liberty?  Unlike McCain, Lewis suffered at the hands of fellow Americans instead of foreign armies, having his skull fractured by police in the “Bloody Sunday” March on Selma, Alabama.  But, I believe that a hero like Lewis deserves every bit as much respect for his exceptional, patriotic experiences.  And, I also trust that he knows racist rhetoric when he sees it, and that he does not wield his opinion on the subject lightly.

For now—after the outright public disgust and outrage with the tactics of McCain and Palin—they have reined-in their poisonous rhetoric out on the campaign trail.  But, it’s incredibly frightening to imagine that they’ve already opened a post-modern Pandora’s Box, that they’ve loosed rapacious greed, envy, vanity, slander, and lying into the midst of our revered political process.

The optimistic news is that—in the original myth—a once-curious, now terrified Pandora slammed the lid closed before “hope” could escape, which would have left mankind utterly inconsolate.

Ah, HOPE.  Thank heaven for it.  And, thank heaven we have another campaign inextricably linked with that very same saving grace.

————

1. Greenblatt, 14.  Machiavelli quotation, The Prince (NY: Modern Library, 1950), 64-65.

2. Greenblatt, 259, n. 3.

______________

This item originally appeared in the blog Percyflage.

Kimberlee A. Cloutier-Blazzard, Ph.D., is a senior contributing writer & contributing editor of Bread and Circus Magazine and an Independent Scholar of Art History, Specializing in Northern Renaissance and Baroque. Click here to send her email.

Campaign 2008

by Editors

Campaign 2008 — Are We Reliving 1968?

By Sarah Katherine Mergel, Bread and Circus contributing writer

The upcoming presidential election, perhaps more to the point the pervasiveness of the 2008 contest, started me thinking about past presidential elections. Everywhere I go, it seems someone is talking about the candidates and their chances for nomination. Maybe I’m overly sensitive because I live in the Washington, DC area, but I suspect not. As much as I agree with E.J. Dionne, who argued in Why Americans Hate Politics (1991) that Americans have tired of the false choices present by left and right, I cannot help but marvel at how much an election still over a year away has permeated our collective consciousness.[i] Dionne might be correct that we do not like politics, but can we escape it? Probably not, but we can take some time to put the election in historical perspective.

The 2008 and 1968 presidential elections seem remarkably similar for two reasons. First, an incumbent did not run in 1968 and cannot run in 2008. When Lyndon Johnson pulled out of the presidential race, it was unclear who would succeed him for the Democratic nomination. In the upcoming election, both parties must find an effective party leader. Second, foreign policy played a major role in 1968 and stands to play an equally important role in 2008. American involvement in Vietnam, as part of the larger Cold War struggle against communism, affected the outcome of the 1968 election. In fact, Melvin Small, a presidential historian, noted that the 1968 election was “was the foreign policy election of the twentieth century.”[ii] The present conflict in Iraq fits into the nation’s broader fight against terrorism and thus shares similar characteristics with Vietnam. The 2008 contest may not be the foreign policy election of the twenty-first century, but like 1968, international affairs will affect both parties as they move toward selecting a candidate.

For the Republicans, the 1968 presidential campaign started almost immediately after Barry Goldwater’s massive defeat in 1964 if not before. Lyndon Johnson trounced Goldwater, leaving Republicans at a loss because they had no apparent leader. Conservatives and liberals within the party fought to control the selection of a candidate in 1968. Richard Nixon considered returning to politics to seek the nomination in 1968. After his loss to John F. Kennedy in 1960, and an even less graceful loss in California’s gubernatorial election in 1962, Nixon needed to combat his image as a loser. Nixon worked hard to sell himself as the ideal candidate for 1968 during the Goldwater campaign and after. He faced challenges for the nomination from Charles Percy, George Romney, and Nelson Rockefeller on his left and Ronald Reagan on his right. Nixon, who after 1966 based his campaign almost exclusively on the Vietnam War and domestic disorder, edged out the other potential nominees. His carefully-crafted image as a centrist made him the only candidate able to speak to a majority of Republicans and even some Democrats. Vietnam became such an important issue for the GOP that George Romney’s comment about being brainwashed by American personnel while visiting Vietnam ended his chances to receive the nomination.

Vietnam also played a major role for the Democrats in 1968. As opposition to American involvement in the war increased after 1966, liberals and leftists called into question Lyndon Johnson’s ability to lead, but they had little hope of unseating the president. The popularity of Johnson’s Great Society programs made it unlikely that most Democrats would abandon him come election time, even if they did not like his foreign policy. Johnson had very little room to maneuver between the doves and the hawks on the war issue, making it difficult to find a solution that would help his reelection effort. If he failed to seek peace antiwar activists attacked, but if peace brought a communist takeover he would loose the support of most anticommunists. Eventually, after the Tet Offensive and a narrow victory in the New Hampshire primary (as the incumbent he should have done better), Johnson withdrew from the race to concentrate on the Vietnam situation.

Still, those opposed to the war remained unsatisfied for they did not want Johnson’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey, to take the nomination. Liberal Democrats favored Eugene McCarthy and while student activists tended to push for Robert Kennedy. McCarthy and Kennedy battled one another in the primaries but the results were anything but conclusive. Splitting the primaries, neither could go to the convention as the prevailing choice of the voters. Ultimately, the delegates nominated Humphrey and adopted a platform catering to President Johnson’s wishes. The vice president had the support of party regulars who made up the bulk of the convention’s delegates. Foreign policy, mostly Humphrey’s initial adherence to Johnson’s Vietnam policy, still rankled many liberals and leftists. The contentious Chicago convention—with its clashes between antiwar activists and the police, not to mention the dissension within the convention hall—made it difficult for the Democrats to mount a successful challenge to the Republicans.[iii]

Until the election, Vietnam continued to play a role in the campaign. Both parties promised peace, but for many voters Nixon’s proposals to end the war and win the peace seemed more appropriate, even though Nixon never specified how he planned to bring American troops home without abandoning South Vietnam. Johnson’s announcement of a bombing halt in October concerned Republican strategists who feared that peace in Vietnam would give Humphrey the boost he needed to win. However, the non-communist South balked at any settlement with the communist North. Richard Nixon defeated Hubert Humphrey and third party candidate George Wallace in November. Nixon likely would have won by a larger margin if Wallace had not provided southern segregationists with an alternative to Democratic and Republican candidates. In the end, Nixon benefited from the voter’s dissatisfaction with Johnson’s handling of the war and the resulting antiwar activism, as well as a fear Humphrey would be no different.

Similar to 1968, neither party has the ability to rely on an incumbent, nor do they have an heir apparent to rely on to head their ticket in 2008.[iv] Dick Cheney is not running, nor was it ever likely he would. The leading Republican candidates including John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney have to fight for support from an assorted body of conservatives and some moderates. Recent GOP debates show that the leaders have a long way to go before they convince conservatives of their right-wing credentials. The Democrats currently have a more diverse field of candidates (in part a legacy of the 1968 election) but, like the Republicans, they must fight for influence within their party. Hillary Clinton (always more liberal than her husband who pioneered the Third Way), Barack Obama, John Edwards, and the other contenders need to find a way to speak effectively for all Democrats.[v]

Moreover, foreign policy, namely the War in Iraq and the fight against terrorism, has already had an effect on the 2008 presidential election and will continue to do so for some time. Much of the first Democratic presidential debate was spent discussing the candidates’ position on Iraq, namely George W. Bush’s policy. The present administration seems unlikely to abandon its commitment to the Iraqi government, even in the face of threats to cut funding for the war. As long as Iraq stays in play, candidates—no matter their political persuasion—will be forced to deal with the war at some point in their campaigns. Socio-economic issues will likely stay in the background as they did in 1968.

As we look forward to 2008, perhaps one lesson we can take away from the 1968 election is that no matter how pressing one issue seems, we would be wise to take all issues into consideration. Nixon eventually did bring American involvement in Vietnam to an end (it only took four years). However, his domestic and economic policies surprised Americans more than anything else. Of course, it would have been hard to tell from his campaign statements that he would support wage and price controls, affirmative action, or a guaranteed family income. Another lesson we can learn from 1968 seems to be that the best politician does not always make the best president. Richard Nixon was a great politician, but his obsession with his political fortunes ultimately led to Watergate and his downfall. We need to be more cognizant of the substance of the message, not its delivery.

With the 2008 election still over a year away, much can happen for the candidates. Although I suspect that foreign policy, not economic or social conditions, will continue to dominate as they did in 1968. Front runners at this stage may find themselves spent by the time primary season heats up in early 2008, only time will tell. One thing seems certain, as with the 1968 election, the 2008 election will likely shape up to be a very interesting with a few twists and turns along the way.

_________________
Sarah Katherine Mergel, Ph.D., specializes in American political and intellectual history since the Civil War. Her primary area of research is the rise of modern conservatism and its effects on political developments, cultural trends, social issues, and international relations.

Images: (top) Richard M. Nixon campaign 1968. White House Photo Office, Oliver Atkins, photographer. Courtesy National Archives and Records Administration. (middle) Richard M. Nixon in motorcade during the 1968 Presidential campaign. White House Photo Office, Oliver Atkins, photographer. Courtesy National Archives and Records Administration. (lower middle) Medical evacuation during Vietnam War. Marines of Company E, 2nd Battalion, 9th Marines, while under heavy firefight with NVAs within the DMZ on Operation Hickory III, are carrying one of their fellow Marines. July 29, 1967. Department of Defense photo, courtesy National Archives and Records Administration. (bottom) Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, President Lyndon B. Johnson, and Gen. Creighton Abrams in a Cabinet Room meeting, March 27, 1968. Photo courtesy Lyndon Baines Johnson Library (Austin, TX).

 

Notes

---

[i] E.J. Dionne, Jr., Why Americans Hate Politics (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991.

[ii] Melvin Small, “The Election of 1968,” Diplomatic History 28 (September 2004), 513-528. The 1968 election was not the only time that foreign policy played a role in a presidential election in the twentieth century, the 1916 election hinged in part on Woodrow Wilson’s claim that he kept the country out of the growing World War.

[iii] Robert Kennedy, of course, was assassinated after his victory in California. Had he lived, he would have been the stronger antiwar candidate at the convention but still would have come up short in needed delegates. Johnson’s control over the Democratic Party, coupled with his animosity toward Kennedy, meant that Kennedy was unlikely to receive the nomination. However, he might have been able to prevent the Democratic platform from being so heavily influenced by Johnson.

[iv] In 1988 and 2000, the incumbent did not run, but his heir apparent did. Both George H.W. Bush, in 1988, and Al Gore, in 2000, had the support of most of their party going into the convention. Humphrey, who was also a sitting vice president, received far more resistance from members of his own party, making him less of an heir apparent. Many supporters of McCarthy and Kennedy chose not to vote, rather than cast their vote for Humphrey.

[v] Joe Klein, The Natural: The Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton (New York: Broadway Books, 2002). Bill Clinton, as a founding member of the Democratic Leadership Council, positioned himself as a centrist. His “third way” was an effort to find middle ground between the conservatism and left-liberalism.

Gaining a Little Perspective

by Editors

Gaining a Little Perspective

By Sarah Katherine Mergel, contributing writer

About a month and a half ago, a friend told me about her son’s experiment to gain a broader perspective of the world around him. He had decided to stop speaking for ten days. He communicated only through a dry erase board and through email or text messages. I weighed the idea of not speaking for maybe fifteen seconds but it seemed particularly unrealistic for me. As a college student, this solution might work. However, I assumed my students might find it odd if I stopped talking. The experiment nevertheless got me thinking about how I could increase my awareness while still trying to keep up with my research, writing, and teaching.

I came up with a three part strategy. One, I perused a magazine that challenged me politically in addition to my regular fare. Two, I read an article that was outside my comfort zone or area of expertise. Finally, I learned something about the past that relates to current events. For some of you, something along these lines has already made its way into your regular routine. The key for me was to find the time to do what I had planned. And happily, I did.

Admittedly, I chuckled through some of the articles in the magazine from the other side of the political spectrum. Although, I did learn more about the U.S. strategy for fighting the Iraq War and the growing antiwar movement. I also picked up some useful information on urban demographics and race. None of what I gleaned will change my political conviction, but I gained a better appreciation of what people on both sides of the issue are saying.

Then I read a fascinating article, Steven Mailloux’s “Thinking with Rhetorical Figures: Performing Racial and Disciplinary Identities in Late-Nineteenth-Century America,” about rhetoric and racial identity. I suspect that someday it will come in useful when teaching about the construction of race in the U.S. While it had something to do with the past in that it focused on 19th-century America, the article presented me with a new perspective on the issue—one based on a literary and psychological analysis.

As an historian, the last task to me seems the most important. I regularly plead with my students to think historically, but it is something I need to do as well. To make it more likely I would learn something new, I chose to go outside my field of expertise—American history—by reading Tara Zara’s “‘Each Nation Cares For Its Own’: Empire, Nation, and Child Welfare Activism in the Bohemian Lands, 1900–1918.” The article enlightened me about connections between European and American progressivism at the turn of the 20th century.

Historians have recognized for some years that British and Americans progressives shared similar goals and tactics. But apparently, these influences reached nationalist movements in Eastern Europe before World War I. Similar to the progressives a century ago, Americans still question what the role of government should be in their lives. Reading this essay reaffirmed my belief that history matters when it comes to evaluating current events and policies.

Overall, the experiment proved to be a nice change of pace from my regular routine and I plan to incorporate these steps into my future schedule. Hopefully, my experience has inspired you to expand your horizons, especially when it comes to thinking historically. To help you along, I will be doling out pearls of wisdom on how historical events related to current political, social, and cultural issues in upcoming installments. Next time—what can the presidential election of 1968 tell us about the 2008 contest?

_________________
Sarah Katherine Mergel, Ph.D., specializes in American political and intellectual history since the Civil War. Her primary area of research is the rise of modern conservatism and its effects on political developments, cultural trends, social issues, and international relations.

Suggested Reading

• Steven Mailloux, “Thinking with Rhetorical Figures: Performing Racial and Disciplinary Identities in Late-Nineteenth-Century America,” American Literary History 18 (Winter 2006): 695-711.
• Tara Zara, “‘Each Nation Cares For Its Own’: Empire, Nation, and Child Welfare Activism in the Bohemian Lands, 1900–1918,” The American Historical Review 111 (December 2006): 1378-1402.