Thursday, March 3, 2011
Evaluating Nixon and Presidents
Because he is so often criticized for things like the Watergate scandal and his corrupt nature, people tend to overlook the accomplishments that the fatally paranoid Richard Nixon had, like improving relations with China and the Soviet Union and his environmental policies, for example. He was far from a saint, but that is not to say that he didn't achieve anything beneficial at all. This leads into the question, how are we to ultimately judge Nixon? And furthermore, how are we to judge our presidents in general? Should they be scrutinized more in their personal actions (consider also, for instance, Bill Clinton), or for their political ability?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that you bring up a very good point. I was actually surprised too today when we watched the documentary in class about Nixon and Watergate. I had forgotten the extent to which Nixon had foreign political success. It is important to realize how big of a deal improving relations with China and the USSR were at the time. Yes, one could say that by that time the cold war and the communist threat was not as prevalent, but even still these were major accomplishments. I think that people focus on Watergate because of the implications this had on people's trust for the presidency and the government in the years that followed. Clearly, the combined influence of the Vietnam War, the leaking of the Pentagon Papers, the whole "cover-up," and Nixon's resignation really made the American public have great trouble fully trusting the government and this newfound mistrust is perhaps what overshadows Nixon's political successes.
ReplyDeleteI think that we should ultimately remember politicians by their political ability. But at the same time, I feel like personal actions can easily fall under the category of political actions as well, just by of the nature of politics, and the two seem to be easily blurred and mixed together sometimes. In Nixon's case, I think that his personal actions had to be addressed, because it moved directly against the political principle of honesty that is supposed to keep the government relatively free of corruption. I'm less certain about Bill Clinton's case. His seemed to be more of a private matter than a political one. But again, it might just be that personal and political are intertwined in the life of a high-profile politician.
ReplyDeleteIn looking at the general trend for Americans to focus upon the negative aspects of a president's term, one can see how our nation is naturally drawn towards scrutinizing people in power. As mentioned in your post, Bill Clinton, however one of the smartest presidents of all time, is solely remembered by his extramarital affair. I do not remember what lecture it was, but I remember of the professors stating how the public media purposely degrades powerful individuals because we seek to bring their status down as equal to our own. By focusing on these personality flaws, we Americans can familiarize ourselves with these presidents. To answer your question I believe that Nixon and Clinton will never be able to escape their negative images. As for Barrack Obama, it will be interesting to see what degrading aspects of his presidency will be remembered forever.
ReplyDeleteThe office of the president of the United States is perhaps the most scrutinized political position in the history of the world. Because of this simple fact, it is often difficult to differentiate the personality of a president from their accomplishments in office. For that very reason, Nixon's legacy has become tainted by the fact that he was indeed a "crook" who threw American trust in government to unprecedented lows. So while Nixon did make some major strides in opening diplomatic relations with China and guiding the United States into a detente with the Soviet Union, he will forever be remembered as the president whose dishonesty forced him into resignation and disgrace.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to define a president as good or bad since politics isn't so simple. The president's first priority should be to look after the welfare of his country, although one can't completely ignore his personality. Their actions cause us to view the president in a certain light, and it would be impossible for a president to please everyone with his actions - a democracy considers the needs and wants of all people, meaning some will inevitably be upset with a president's decisions. Nixon is known for being a corrupt president, but to overlook the gains of his administration would be unfair.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking this exact thing while listening to Aberbach lecture. Some of the people Nixon appointed were calling him a "son of a bitch" and "crazy." While those may be true, I find it really disheartening that people are only remembered for the worst thing they did. I believe it's simply the way humans look at the world: we look past the good aspects and publicize the bad aspects. For example, how often do you see good news while watching the news? In most cases, I believe we should judge our presidents based on the whole of their accomplishments and failures, however, in Nixon's case, his failure was so large that it completely negated all of his accomplishments.
ReplyDelete